help me understand this foul
 

I am a diamond sports official, but I would like some help understanding this call.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JFRnCZXWzk

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/7JFRnCZXWzk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looks like a bad call to me. I guess the official saw Lowry's feet kick out and perhaps trip the defender, but that looks marginal to me.

I briefly searched the NBA rule and case books but found nothing about this situation. APG?

This...

Referees to emphasize ‘Reggie Miller rule’ for shooters kicking out*legs | The Point Forward - SI.com

Correct call IMO. Lowlrey sticks out his leg and causes contact when it's clear that the defender won't be contacting him. Though the contact isn't great, the contact trips up the defender. As alluded to JMF's article, the NBA started more strictly enforcing these types of plays as offensive fouls and similar plays in past POE videos bares this out.

Could be correct by NBA rules/interps (certainly not my area of expertise), but after looking at the replay multiple times, it doesn't look to me like the offensibe player stuck his leg out. In fact, after the ball was released, the defender makes contact on the arm of the shooter (last replay starting @ ~1:38 shows this best) which is what appears to be the cause of the body twist/right leg going forward.

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

The right leg was going forward before any of that marginal contact with the arm after the release.

Near impossible to tell what happened first in my opinion. I'm looking at 1:41 and there is no contact on the arm, nor is there any leg kick. by 1:42, there is both contact on the right arm (agree that it is marginal and doesn't deserve a call) and the right leg is now in front of the left. Both arm contact and leg movement seem to happen right at the change from 1:41 - 1:42.

What happened first aside, do you think the official was happy with this call after watching it? There are calls that I have made that might be technically correct, but that I wish in hindsight that I would have no-called. This seems like it would be one of those situations where the official in hindsight would have wished he had let this go as a no call.

The leg may not "kick", but he certainly sticks it out way beyond his vertical plane in a way that causes the defender to trip. Normally I wouldn't mind a no-call, but this is a situation where you have one player responsible for contact that puts the opponent on the floor. I like the call.

With both players going to the floor on this type of play...IMO a call needed to be made.

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

I think we had a thread on this a few months ago and I was alone (I think) on this being a foul on the offense. Most were in agreement that you have to protect the shooter but I think the shooter is taking away the path of the defense illegally. I would be ok with a no call here but I am also ok with the offensive foul. As a secondary question, is this a PC foul or a no team control foul (ie free throws or not)?

If you're asking NBA, this is an offensive foul...

NFHS...what are fouls committed by an airborne shooter classified as? ;)

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

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).

+1

[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... :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That wasn't the shooter's space.

whoz space was it? was it the defenders space?

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

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.

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.

WE are not officiating NBA games, which has a different set of marching orders.

This.

I'd have a no call here in a game I'm working. The NBA has their own POEs that don't match ours.

I really don't think we can criticize this call in a vacuum.

Agree here, I'm speaking in general terms about the call. And Bryan, bodies hit the floor all the time. It doesn't mean it was illegal contact that sent them there.

Steve Javie (former NBA ref) was with the announcers crew yesterday in the ABC/ESPN game (Bulls-Lakers). They spoke at length on air about the officials and the officiating. Kind of neat. At one point, they showed the Kyle Lowry play in question. Javie felt a no call would have been better in this instance. Pehaps in hindsight, Eric Lewis might have no called it as well. Unfortunately, the decision has to be made instantly.

Whether or not a player gets hurt as a result of contact has no bearing on that contact being legal or illegal. This is not the correct way to determine if you are going to call a foul or not and should not influence you in either direction.

I didn't say that. You're taking what I said out of context.

It's true... you're not going to have a foul every time somebody falls. Which is why I said I'd be fine with a no-call in this situation.

I see this as a bush league play by the offense and I want them to stop it. If I think they put they foot out on purpose and it trips someone (they did, and it did in this case), I'm calling an offensive foul. The fact that only the NBA has a POE on this doesn't indicate that the underlying rules are different (they're the same), just that the NBA made it a POE.

How did I take what you said out of context? You asked if somebody would change their mind from not calling a foul to calling a foul not because the defender fell, but because he got hurt. I never claimed you said you or anybody else would change their mind because a player fell. I did say, using an injury or lack thereof to determine whether or not a foul occurred is not a criteria to determine whether or not a player's actions constitute a foul. Seems to me my response is in the exact context of your post.

I have to agree with johnny. I fail to see how his response takes your question out of context.

No, I didn't say I'd change my mind on whether it was a foul or not. I'm saying that a player falling shouldn't be disregarded, because a fall could end up bad if said player hit his/her head. Or a fall could end up with another type of injury.

So while it's true not all falls are created equal, and some can be let go, they can be bad and therefore prevented through proper officiating.

This fall in particular could end up really bad. Those two players didn't just tangle their feet together during "normal" play. The defender was tripped while in the air, so there is a greater chance of injury. It's pretty much the same reason it's okay to hang on a rim to prevent injury from the fall.

I am saying that the action that caused the player to fall, regardless of how likely it is that the person/persons falling could be hurt, is either a foul or not a foul. This designation does not change because of an injury or possibility that an injury might occur.

I don't understand how proper officiating is going to prevent any type of fall from occurring. Anything that an official may or may not call is going to come after the action has already occurred and the fall has already happened. Using the OP as an example. Let's assume that there isn't any debate (obviously not the case in this play) that the offensive player committed a PC foul. I am sure that Lowry was/is aware of this ruling in the NBA. Did his knowledge of the rule and the official correctly calling it stop the play from happening? Of course it did not and can not. There are things we can control as officials by blowing our whistles, and things like players falling and being injured or being knocked down and injured that we have no control over.

Proper officiating doesn't prevent falls or injuries. All it can do is penalize the illegal acts that led to those events.

This is a more succinct and better way of stating what my last post tried to say.

And if you penalize those illegal acts, like this trip, then you prevent other players/shooters from doing it. So in this case proper officiating won't directly prevent injuries, it can help prevent future injury.

This all goes back to saying the trip was incidental, and the fact that just because the contact is incidental doesn't mean it's not a foul. If you want to debate whether this is a foul... fine. But saying it's not a foul because the contact was incidental is wrong.

I think you are confusing incidental with minimal. Incidental contact is by definition not a foul. Minimal contact may or may not be a foul.

One definition of "incidental" is that something is liable to happen as a consequence of an activity. The intent of the activity is not to trip or foul the defender, but that is indeed what happens.

So the question is... is it legal for the shooter to kick his feet out like he did?

Maybe, but here we would tend to use the rules book definition so as not to cause confusion.

You're right.

The defender jumping into that space can be considered a normal defensive movement. If the defender jumped into space that the shooter had legally occupied, then a foul on the shooter can not be called. But that's not the case. Therefore I see that the contact was caused because of the shooter kicking his feet out into that space, and such contact tripped the defender.

The fact the defender could have gotten injured should not be a factor... that is right. But the trip is an illegal act, and penalizing it can help prevent something like this happening again in the future. And a possible future trip may not end as well. Hence... preventing injury.