help me understand this foul

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not sold on the call either, but if you do not want this to be called, do not stick your leg out every time to make a shot. Sorry, but that is very common and was often overlooked because the offensive player could create almost murder and no one (including me at one time) would call nothing. I would be happier with a no call, but the NBA must have addressed this issue with their officials.

Peace

It's not the most egregious example, but I like the call. Fortunately, most high school shooters aren't doing this to try to get a call.

Yet.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's not the most egregious example, but I like the call. Fortunately, most high school shooters aren't doing this to try to get a call.

Yet.

I have seen some try it, but they are not as good in the execution.

Peace

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.