The Dayton no-call (video)

[BryanV21]

While the defender is not perfectly vertical, and may even be outside his own verticality, you can't dismiss the fact that the shooter is clearly jumping into the defender to try and draw a foul. By calling a shooting foul here you're bailing out the shooter.

Also, if the shooter wasn't jumping into the defense to draw a foul, the contact wouldn't have happened in the first place, making the shooter at least partially at fault. Should his fault be pushed aside? I don't think so.

No call.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

While the defender is not perfectly vertical, and may even be outside his own verticality, you can't dismiss the fact that the shooter is clearly jumping into the defender to try and draw a foul. By calling a shooting foul here you're bailing out the shooter.

Also, if the shooter wasn't jumping into the defense to draw a foul, the contact wouldn't have happened in the first place, making the shooter at least partially at fault. Should his fault be pushed aside? I don't think so.

No call.

I'm fine with that analysis. Or at least fine enough not to wander into the weeds of it, but your at clear disagreement with a number of people on this board who say he was in his own vertical space.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by youngump

... your at clear disagreement with a number of people on this board who say he was in his own vertical space.

I didn't not say he was or wasn't vertical. I said that "while the defender is not perfectly vertical, and may even be outside his own verticality..."

[Rob1968]

It appears to me that the contact, caused by the shooter, is on the hand of the shooter which is holding the ball. There is not enough responsibility for illegal contact by the defender to call a foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm fine with that analysis. Or at least fine enough not to wander into the weeds of it, but your at clear disagreement with a number of people on this board who say he was in his own vertical space.

Oh, the defender was not vertical. But I have the shooter moving forward into his stationary arm and creating contact with an unnatural shooting motion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

It appears to me that the contact, caused by the shooter, is on the hand of the shooter which is holding the ball. There is not enough responsibility for illegal contact by the defender to call a foul.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Oh, the defender was not vertical. But I have the shooter moving forward into his stationary arm and creating contact with an unnatural shooting motion.

And, the first point of contact appeared to be the defenders armpit area, not the arm that was over the shooter. Any contact with the lower arm was secondary at that point.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

While the defender is not perfectly vertical, and may even be outside his own verticality, you can't dismiss the fact that the shooter is clearly jumping into the defender to try and draw a foul. By calling a shooting foul here you're bailing out the shooter.

One could say that by not calling a foul, you're bailing out the defender who did not play good defense...cause honestly, the defender was not playing good defense here. He jumps at a 3 point shooter. At the point of contact, the defender is nowhere near vertical....if you want to say the contact is marginal, I can see that. But let's not act like this defender plays good defense or was anywhere near vertical.

[SamIAm]

From a former official (me) - I see a try with contact between arm of shooter and defender's arm with defender trying to contest the shot with arms forward and up (outside defender's verticality). A1 is under no obligation to avoid defender's positioning. Foul.

[JeffM]

I think that is a great no call. I agree that this play is often called a foul, but it isn't always called a foul.

The shooter stepped into the defender and initiated contact with the arms. If the shooter went straight up with the intent of making the shot, he likely would have gotten the shot off without it being blocked.

Based on what I've heard from college officials defenders get up to 30 degrees of arm down before they are really considered to be illegal. Just a rule of thumb I've heard.

[Camron Rust]

Food for thought:

NCAA 4-40-3:

Contact that does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements shall be considered incidental.

(emphasis mine).

I do agree that the defender was several degrees short of fully vertical. However, did his position prevent normal movements by the shooter? Does the fact that the shooter jumped abnormally in hopes of a foul provide some amount of immunity to the defender?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Food for thought:

NCAA 4-40-3:

(emphasis mine).

I do agree that the defender was several degrees short of fully vertical. However, did his position prevent normal movements by the shooter? Does the fact that the shooter jumped abnormally in hopes of a foul provide some amount of immunity to the defender?

I think the shooter's jump moves the threshold.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Food for thought:

NCAA 4-40-3:

(emphasis mine).

I do agree that the defender was several degrees short of fully vertical. However, did his position prevent normal movements by the shooter? Does the fact that the shooter jumped abnormally in hopes of a foul provide some amount of immunity to the defender?

Nobody is mentioning a very important element to this situation. The offensive player won this matchup. He got the defender off his feet and out of LGP in a pretty substantial way with the pump fake. He got caught being aggressive. He was clearly beaten by the pump fake.

People can argue whether it is good basketball to reward the shooter for blatantly jumping into the defender, but when an offensive player makes a good move to eliminate LGP, he has won the matchup, and has earned the opportunity to "draw the foul". You cannot reward the defense for getting beaten, the same way you cannot allow offensive players to jump into defenders with LGP and "draw a foul". That's why this is called over and over again, even on 3-point attempts, during the regular season, despite everybody hating it. Should have been called here, too.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

While the defender is not perfectly vertical, and may even be outside his own verticality, you can't dismiss the fact that the shooter is clearly jumping into the defender to try and draw a foul. By calling a shooting foul here you're bailing out the shooter.

^^^^^This. I think he (the defender) is awfully lucky the shooter didn't go up with the shot right away.

The contact was initiated by the shooter so I'm not too concerned with verticality here. True, the defender is not vertical and if the shooter hadn't jumped into the defender the whole play changes.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mregor

^^^^^This. I think he (the defender) is awfully lucky the shooter didn't go up with the shot right away.

The contact was initiated by the shooter so I'm not too concerned with verticality here. True, the defender is not vertical and if the shooter hadn't jumped into the defender the whole play changes.

You have to be concerned -- if I draw you off the floor and you're not vertical, of course I'm going to initiate contact with you. It's what good players do on a pump fake, after all. It's still a foul on the defense.