help me understand this foul

[walt]

I like the call. I have some friends who are D1 men's officials who have been told by their supervisor(s) to watch for leg kicks and call a foul on the shooter in this type of play. According to them, early in the season, this was happening and defenders who were within their own space were being called for a foul as a result of contact on a leg kick by the shooter. I agree, thankfully we have not seen this filter down to the high school level (yet).

[walt]

Originally Posted by indianaref

if you are asking whether the technical foul was correct, yes at all levels.

+1

[JMUplayer]

[QUOTE=JRutledge;921593]I have seen some try it, but they are not as good in the execution.

Reason for that is a majority don't have the hang time to make it effective...

[ballgame99]

I agree a leg kick should not be rewarded with FTs, and could be called offensive if blatent, but this one just looks like a bad call. The leg motion doesn't appear to be anything more than a typical shooting motion. And even if you did rule it to be intentional, how is that contact more than incidental?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I agree a leg kick should not be rewarded with FTs, and could be called offensive if blatent, but this one just looks like a bad call. The leg motion doesn't appear to be anything more than a typical shooting motion. And even if you did rule it to be intentional, how is that contact more than incidental?

Because it tripped the defender. I didn't see his leg kicked out, but his entire body is at an intentionally awkward angle, which makes it look less blatant. It seemed obvious to me that he was trying to draw contact, and succeeded in tripping the defender.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

...is this a PC foul or a no team control foul (ie free throws or not)?

I have not seen an answer, and I don't know for sure, but my initial thought is to treat this as a PC foul. The shooter has not returned to the floor, and therefore is an airborne shooter. A foul on an airborne shooter is a PC foul.

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I agree a leg kick should not be rewarded with FTs, and could be called offensive if blatent, but this one just looks like a bad call. The leg motion doesn't appear to be anything more than a typical shooting motion. And even if you did rule it to be intentional, how is that contact more than incidental?

Since when does a player have to mean to foul another in order for a call to be made? Typical motion or not, the player's feet are outside his vertical space. And since the defender did nothing wrong, as he's allowed to jump into that space, the foul call is right.

Plus, if the shooter intentionally kicked his feet out to trip the defense, then you have an intentional foul... not just a PC foul.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Adam

Because it tripped the defender. I didn't see his leg kicked out, but his entire body is at an intentionally awkward angle, which makes it look less blatant. It seemed obvious to me that he was trying to draw contact, and succeeded in tripping the defender.

Agree to disagree.I see a defender that is off balance and coming toward the shooter that makes incidental contact with the shooter who is making a normal shooting motion.

[shagpal]

okay, as a fan, not an official (I work diamond sports), I see the same.

like a charge call or block, how can a shooter be guilty if the defender comes flying into the shooters space? the shooter is not kicking out. the shooter is fading away to get off a clean shot. the if the defender wants to block that shot, I think the onus should be on the defender to make it clean vertical jump, not the shooter. the defender was flying into the shot and tangled with the shooters feet. the shooter established that space first.

am I off on my philosophy or not seeing the video correctly?

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Agree to disagree.I see a defender that is off balance and coming toward the shooter that makes incidental contact with the shooter who is making a normal shooting motion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by shagpal

okay, as a fan, not an official (I work diamond sports), I see the same.

like a charge call or block, how can a shooter be guilty if the defender comes flying into the shooters space? the shooter is not kicking out. the shooter is fading away to get off a clean shot. the if the defender wants to block that shot, I think the onus should be on the defender to make it clean vertical jump, not the shooter. the defender was flying into the shot and tangled with the shooters feet. the shooter established that space first.

am I off on my philosophy or not seeing the video correctly?

Not seeing correctly. The shooter stuck his leg forward into the path of the defender that would have missed everything otherwise....and the last part is what makes the difference.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by shagpal

... how can a shooter be guilty if the defender comes flying into the shooters space?...

That wasn't the shooter's space.

[shagpal]

whoz space was it? was it the defenders space?

Originally Posted by BryanV21

That wasn't the shooter's space.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by shagpal

whoz space was it? was it the defenders space?

Why do you think the offense is more entitled to that space than the defense?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by shagpal

whoz space was it? was it the defenders space?

At the time of the shot, the space belongs to nobody. Therefore it is perfectly legal for the defender to jump there.

However, by kicking his feet into that space, the shooter is hindering the defender's ability to make a normal and legal move.

I like to think of a player's "space" this way...

At that player's spot, imagine if they are in a tube. Like the ones participants in the Hunger Games are in before entering the arena (did I just out myself as a nerd?). The player can move up and down in that space all they want, and they are legal. But, if a player reaches out beyond that tube, then we have a problem. And that goes for the offense or defense.

If the player moves to that spot first, meaning actually stepping there and not just reaching there with an arm or leg, then he/she is all good.

[ballgame99]

Regardless of who was in who's space, the contact was incidental and should have been a no call. As much contact as gets allowed in the game today and we call it incidental, you are going to call an offensive foul because a shooters foot hits a defender's leg? Come on.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Regardless of who was in who's space, the contact was incidental and should have been a no call. As much contact as gets allowed in the game today and we call it incidental, you are going to call an offensive foul because a shooters foot hits a defender's leg? Come on.

First of all, the contact caused the defender to fall. This isn't a case where one player just bumped into another and played on without incident.

Secondly, if the defender had fallen to the floor and hit his head, instead of falling and not getting hurt at all, would you still consider the contact to be okay?

In this play I wouldn't get up in arms about either call (offensive foul or no-call). I'm just saying that a foul call on the offense is justified here.