Michigan-Louisville shooting foul clip (Hancock/Burke 1st half)
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jhs-HDHyiLI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ok, I am going to get blasted for this, but. I hate this call. There isn't going to be any contact by the defense. The contact only happens because the offensive player jumps into the defensive player.

Not from me, I hate it too. Not only for the reason you stated but because even with that there is little contact. I'm not bailing that guy out like that.

End of the Game
 

This is a play you see frequently at the end of a game. A majority of the time it is passed on because the offense is completely responsible for initiating the contact. I did not like the call.

Who initiated contact?

Good call and good job of the offensive player drawing a foul from a defender who went for the pump fake. There are many instances where players offensive and defensive players jump into each other during a shot and almost always its a foul on the defense.

If the defender followed the rule of verticality then I would agree that this call was incorrect, but since he didn't the onus for contact IMO is on him.

So instead of jumping what if the offensive player took one dribble over to that spot and the defensive player landed on him? Would you still not want a foul called?

If the defensive player stays vertical he doesn't have to worry about a foul call.

The defender when they jumped across the path of the shooter. Good foul call. I'll call that every time.

From a fan point of few, obviously I do not want the call. But as an official, it was absolutely the right and only call. The defender committed too early and it was a good play by the shooter (MOP BTW). He was doing this all weekend to both Wichita State and Michigan more than once in each game.

Peace

What contact?

Weak call, again from trail who has no angle and is straightlined.

Defense doesn't want a foul called on him, close out better and jump straight up and down.

W11 leans left into the defender before starting shooting motion. That was NOT normal offensive movement by W11, thus 4-27-3 applies. W11 could have easily gone straight vertical, as he did for every other shot he took in this game, and there would not have been any contact made by the defender.

What the heck???

It is T's call all the way. T has that play because the L has all the post play. And no way is T straightlined - he is looking right down the court between the two players. The camera angle is straightlined.

So when a shooter fades away or jumps at an angle, that is not a foul when contact occurs because they normally jump in another direction? I guess by that logic we should never call a foul on a jump shooter that tries to make a lay up based on normality of the player involved.

Peace

What exactly is 'the path' of a shooter? Assuming that is different from the path of a dribbler.....

Or better yet, avoid any physical contact. Which, it appears, he did avoid doing.

The shooter gets to chose how they shoot the ball. The defense has to defend it legally. If the shooter wants to trap the defender in a bad position, the defender has to be smart enough to avoid it.

How did he change directions in mid-air then? Was there a big gust of wind? Or was it from the contact with the shooter?

It is whichever way he wants to go where a defender has not legally obtained a position.

Well you're going to be alone or in the minority in thinking that...definitely contact there IMO.

Sucked in his gut...curved his spine to make an inverted C.....I don't know how he did it, but the camera angles provided doesn't show any contact. Only results that lead the majority to think there must have been contact. :p

Sometimes, you don't get the camera angle you need and you have to go by the symptoms...and all the symptoms of contact were there. His path was one that would create contact. The defender's body reacted at exactly the right time as if there were contact. The shooter's body also display a reaction at the same time that was consistent with contact. All that says trust the official who has a better angle than the TV camera.

This is the trails call to make all the way. Maybe he was straightlined, maybe he had a better look than you think. Either way, the defender was not in a legal position when contact occurred with jump shooter. This has to be a foul every time.

If there was literally no contact like you're trying to say, you would see the defender have a much different reaction than what he showed.

For the record there was another play where a Michigan player (I believe Robinson) did a fake and a UL player landed on Robinson after the fake. The difference is Robinson did not continue to shoot and dribbled to where he would get contact. The only difference was this play was earlier in the game (based on the thread title) and it involved a shooter. Both players IMO were properly called a foul on the defender for committing and not being an LGP when contact occurred.

Peace

So normal offensive movement is anything the shooter chooses to do? I disagree. That logic removes the necessity of putting 'normal offensive movement' in the rule book then, because nothing is abnormal. Sorry, a shooter jumping sideways towards a defender to shoot the ball is abnormal. If anything, wouldn't common sense say that if he's going to jump sideways, he would have jumped the other way, away from the defender?

I'm looking through the books, can't find what I'm looking for, but I know somewhere I've read that the onus is on the offenvise player to avoid contact. Maybe older wording, but I think fits this specific play perfectly....

The defender showed no reaction other than stand there..... Now the UM coach and bench personnel, they had a reaction... looks kinda like a 'are you kidding me?' type reaction.

I hold myself to the following standard: Work your arse off to be in position to make calls (move to improve), BUT, never call what can't be seen (aka make shit up aka guessing/ASSuming).

If I can't tell a partner, assignor or a coach what I had - I'm not blowing my whisle.

Wait a minute, now. I didn't say there wasn't any contact.

Let us know if you find "honous" in any book you have from the bible to the rule book and possibly the dictionary:D

You can give general situations all day. I can only comment on specific plays, like this one. Each play is different and unique coach....

On this play I am applying the incidental contact rule based on what is normal offensive movement of a shooter in W11's position.

Well that reference only applies to incidental contact. You also cannot forget what is legal for a defender to do either in the rulebook. And when contact occurs and the defender is not legal, they are responsible. That is why the rules talks about what is legal for the defender to do and when.

Peace

It's on the same page as "tummy" and "crouch". :D

I only gave those examples because you are using "normal" as if we have to judge what is normal based on how they jump or shoot. That sounds like an irrelevant point to me.

Peace

Damn, thought I'd gotten away from my grammar teacher... I fixed it Mrs. Belcher....

So I will post again:
So instead of jumping what if the offensive player took one dribble over to that spot and the defensive player landed on him? Would you still not want a foul called?

If the defensive player stays vertical he doesn't have to worry about a foul call.

I am only using 'normal' because the rule books uses 'normal'. No other reason...

Apparently the academic standards at IU aren't what they once were:D

The book talks about normal movement being changed because of contact. It does not say that the movement before the contact has to be "normal." The rule talks about movement when contact occurs. This is why your reference does not wash with me and others. There is nothing in the rules that says that a player cannot fake and move to allow himself to be contacted. If it did I am sure there would be a case play or A.R to justify your point of view. And the NCAA would have also used video to illustrate that point as well considering these kinds of fouls are called often.

Peace

Unfortunately there's no angle from either endline to examine. From the angle above you can't tell if there is or isn't contact.

Then why are you guessing on this one?

So are we only protecting an offensive player who's in the air, allowing him to land, without someone stepping underneath him?

Not me, that philosophy applies to both an offensive and a defensive player.

The only rule remotely close to what you are talking about is when there is less than 3ft between the defender and the side/end line and the offensive player tries to squeeze through. Definitely has nothing to do with this play. Rule 4-7

So you think that if a defender gets in the air first, they get the right to land?

Lets say you have a shooter driving from the top of the key and you have a defender rotating from the corner. The defender, while running to get in front of the shooter jumps. Then the shooter continues and jumps (maybe even stepping to the side to get a better angle, but could have easily pulled up for a mid-range jumper too). The two collide. Do you think the defender is legal because they got in the air first? Seems like that is what you're claiming. And you would be correct if the shooter was guarding the defender or setting a screen on the defender, but that isn't what is happening.

The word 'changed' does not appear once in Section 27 on Incidental Contact. However, I do understand your position and points you've made. I would really like to see further clarification on these type of plays.

If B1 is standing shoulder to shoulder with A1, who has the ball, and A1 jumps into B1 and shoots the ball. To you that is a shooting foul on B1 because B1 doesn't have LGP on A1, correct?

Talk about leaps in logic. :rolleyes:

I think I already answered, but yes, the defender has a right to land. If he doesn't have that right, aren't we not putting that player's safety at risk? Any player in the air is vulnerable, doesn't matter if a ball is in his hands or not. Making intentional contact with that player before that player lands is dangerous and should not be rewarded.

So this is no longer about the rules but rather what certain fans believe should be the rule. I get it now.

Well for the record we are not talking about a NF play. We are talking about a NCAA play which has a little different wording but not by much (4-40, not 4-27).

I also do not see the misunderstanding here. I simply think and know from experience and what has been listed under NF or NCAA rules interpretations from their literature there is no such "equal" situation when a defender is not in a legal position. There is a reason the defender is listed as to what is legal and not legal. When you are coming forward and you contact a ball handler or shooter, then the responsibility for the contact is on the defender if it puts the ball handler at a disadvantage. If you are going to reference on part of the rule, then reference the other relevant parts too. You have to look at what is legal guarding position, what an airborne shooter can do and how rules are interpreted by the NCAA (or NF).

Peace

Not really. Those that suggest the OP is a defensive foul is because the defender never had LGP. I am giving another example of where a defender does not have LGP, and verifying that this would also be a defensive foul. Pretty straightforward....

The huge difference is you have a moving defender in the OP. Your situation does not have a moving defender. LGP grants the right to be moving at the point of contact, within restrictions.

I never mentioned LGP once. It's a foul b/c the defender was not vertical and contacted the offensive player while coming down. Same as it would be a foul if the Hancock had taken a dribble to his left and the Burke had landed on him.

I agree the defender was not vertical, but I see the offensive player initiating the contact. I do not support the premise that just because a defender is in the air, may not have LGP, that any contact made is caused by the defender and should be penalized as such. To do so would put a player's safety at risk. In you example, Burke's safety would be at risk and Hancock should not be rewarded for intentionally doing so.

Are we only concerned about player safety when it comes to contact above the shoulders?

By rule, yes, the coaches/ADs/commissioners have only emphasized above the shoulder contact in the rule book.

They all seem to be happy with the premise that the play in question is a foul.

This is where you're wrong. A defender doesn't have the right to land if doing so takes away from the opponents right to perform their actions.

The rules on airborne players are in relation to "guarding". They protect offensive players from being guarded illegally. They don't protect defensive players.

The defender has the responsibility to play defense within the guidelines of legal guarding. Jumping laterally is not within those guidelines. The only jump that is protected for the defender is a vertical jump.

This defender was moving but never had LGP. Even if he had LGP, jumping sideways and towards the shooter removes the protection of LGP. Any contact that happens is the responsibility of the defender.

Didn't I just say that???

I'm not guessing. Rather, I'm confirming the camera angle does not show any contact. haha! :p

And since you can't tell, you declare the call to be wrong????:rolleyes:

I think it's a no call from the angle the cameras show.

So which is it?

A camera angle not showing contact is hardly the same as a camera angle showing there was no contact. There is no evidence the official got this call wrong. In fact, there are multiple points that can be seen in the video to support the call.

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".

I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

Verticality
 

think about the play in question this way: If A1 was driving to the basket on one side of the lane and jumped laterally toward the hoop in an attempt to shoot - and at the same time B1 came from the opposite block and jumped laterally toward A1 - and they both collided in the air.....what would you have

I think the play in question might raise eyebrows on the amount of contact etc, but there is no question that the defender was not vertical nor legal regardless of which way the offensive play jumped.

If the defender was vertical and the shooter initiated contact, then we have PC foul or no call..

Just my opinion

Try this for some more fun: Go back and watch the video again. This time, focus on the shooter's feet after securing the ball and starting his shooting motion. Forget about the defender and any other contact.

Whatchya got?

I think Camron's point is that absent evidence that says the officials were wrong (you've said it was inconclusive), he's going to defer to the officials on the court. That's not the same things as what you here refer to as "results driven officiating." I assume by that you mean something along the lines of calling a foul because you see a player holding his eye, so you assume he was poked by the defender. That's not what Camron is suggesting.

It's possible the official saw something you can't see on camera, and the video evidence (according to Camron) supports it even if it doesn't confirm it.

Nothing. He picks his pivot foot up prior to shooting, but doesn't put it back down til after the shot is released. That's nothing, technically or otherwise.

Can someone answer a hopefully simple question? Where was contact made? Looks like the only possible contact that could have been made was towards the end line side and if that's the case, how in the world could the T see that? Maybe he had x-ray vision?

Two apples? Oh, what, that was a different question.

Contact by the defense on the left side of the torso and left arm. This contact did not allow the normal shooting motion (two hands in contact with the ball on a jump shot) to take place. In addition the contact caused a shooter (who had hardly missed a 3 pt attempt for 2 weeks) to shoot the ball behind the backboard.

Seems easy to explain, although for me, I typically don't give lengthy explanations. Me: Shooter got hit during shot.

I hear what you're saying. Any defender without LGP that decides to jump in the air is free game for the ballhandler/shooter to collide into any part of that defender and most likely be rewarded for doing so. I think that sums it up....

+1.... Answer: He couldn't.

He couldn't?

Well for one that is his primary coverage. Secondly the Lead is not looking there (and that is obvious on the video). The play went to the lane and kicked out to outside the 3 point line. The Trail is watching that entire set up. So he must have seen it and felt it was a foul. And on a shooter it does not take much contact to call a foul.

This is not Women's coverage area.

Peace

1 I'm more than good with that.

2 That's what I thought CR was saying.

I don't think I said it wasn't his call. From his angle he misses Hancock leaning left to try and initiate contact. Based on the physical play of the game, I felt this was inconsistent if there was any contact. Nothing there imo. Not the worst call, I just didn't like it.

Good acting job by Hancock though