Quotes from Cavs' forums-"Fouling a 3 pt shooter three times in the last 3 minutes of the game?!?! Are you kidding"

[Tremendous Upside]

The rule exists for various injuries along the years in situations where player wasnt actually allowed to land clean. It is not only justifiable, but also a good rule. Any rules can be exploited.. shot fouls have been exploited forever by top players who drive into defenders who are not in a legal guarding position. Its the oldest trick in the book.

Defenders need to be aware that the rules can be exploited and Levert does as bad a job on that play as you can. He turns around to spectate the shot, completely oblivious of where he is in relation to the shooter. Dumb play. He didnt even contest the shot and still gave that opportunity... Smart defenders take slightly diagonal angles on their closeouts and continue their motion passing the shooter but Levert just ran straight towards JC and then turned around to spectate the shot directly in front of him.

I don't think it's fair to demand that the defender essentially gets himself way out of position like that to avoid a "foul". When you do a good close out, you don't overextend. You have to be able to contest the shot but also stay ready for a shot fake / drive.

If the defender jumps straight up when contesting and the shooter takes a 5ft leap forward, landing on the defender's ankle, it should never be a foul. I mean, how could it? How do you avoid that as a defender? The rules say you have a right to stay within your own "cylinder", jumping and landing within it.

 

[HermanG]

I don't think it's fair to demand that the defender essentially gets himself way out of position like that to avoid a "foul". When you do a good close out, you don't overextend. You have to be able to contest the shot but also stay ready for a shot fake / drive.

If the defender jumps straight up when contesting and the shooter takes a 5ft leap forward, landing on the defender's ankle, it should never be a foul. I mean, how could it? How do you avoid that as a defender? The rules say you have a right to stay within your own "cylinder", jumping and landing within it.

I agree that there are gray areas about it.. but the rule applies to both offensive and defensive players.

But that jumping straight up doesnt apply here... futhermore it should never be a foul since defenders are actually protected by the same rule. But if you look at the screenshots below, you can see Leverts half assed contest comes from pretty far away and Clarkson is leaning forward when he shoots. Clarkson moves like 1 and a half feet while Levert moves easily 3 feet straight towards JC.

If he jumps straight up, no chance for a fould. If he jumps diagonally, no chance for a foul. But he "jumps" straight into Clarksons landing space.




Most reveling pic on the other hand is right in the middle of those two moments. Clarkson is focusing on his shot while Levert turns to look away.. but see his left leg? Thats why the booth changed it to a flagrant 1.


Plain and simple, Levert played that badly. He gave that foul away. It wasnt Jordan doing some magical jump to a guy standing still. Levert took a bad angle on the challenge going straight towards JC and half assed on the jump as well, thus landing before the shooter. And worst part is he wasnt aware where he was because he spectated the ball.

 

[Swuul]

If the defender jumps straight up when contesting and the shooter takes a 5ft leap forward, landing on the defender's ankle, it should never be a foul. I mean, how could it? How do you avoid that as a defender? The rules say you have a right to stay within your own "cylinder", jumping and landing within it.

If the defender jumps straight up and the shooter lands on his ankles, then it is a foul on the shooter. However, Levert didn't jumpt straight up, but came with speed, jumped forwards though he no chance to contest the shot, landed while turning to spectate the shot, and Clarkson landed on his feet. Could Clarkson have done some acrobatics to avoid landing on Leverts feet? Possibly, but in cases where the defender deliberately runs or jumps into the area where the shooter is landing, then it is a foul called on the defender. Because Levert also made no attempt to avoid the contact (he even turned his back to Clarkson while he well knew Clarkson was in the air and about to land where Levert landed) and extended his left leg to make sure contact would happen, the foul was elevated to flagrant. In this case the logic goes thus:
1) Levert sees Clarkson is about to take the shot.
2) Levert has no chance to block the shot, but jumps anyway forwards to distract Clarkson (as Clarkson surely sees he might make contact with Levert when he lands, and that might alter his shot).
3) Levert knew Clarkson was about to land where Levert had just landed, but instead of attempting to avoid contact he attempted to make sure a contact was going to happen.

In all, an extremely stupid (and potentially very dangerous) play from Levert, and Clarkson took full advantage of the Leverts stupidity.

Intentionally turning your back so that the opposing player in forwards motion will make contact with your back is prohibited in all sports. In icehockey, in football, in american football, in cricket, and yes, even in basketball.

 

[fishonjazz]

Saw game, was stupid plays by Lavert but one flagrant was stupid call by ref, jordan jump forward a lot into Lavert. It was difference in game.

I agree. I didn't think it would be called a flagrant. If I were a cavs fan I would have been very very pissed about that flagrant call.

 

[fishonjazz]

No, it's a terrible rule as currently enforced. Shooters are doing all they can to land on the defender's foot (or very near it) and kicking their legs out to trip guys closing them out, making themselves fall down in the process The defenders basically don't have a chance if they actually try to bother the shot.

The League should have known this was going to happen. Players will look for any advantage they can find and gaming the rules has become totally acceptable. Harden & co led the way and introduced a new culture to the NBA.

While it's good for the Jazz that Clarkson managed to fool the refs (and I cheered him for it), the fact is that if it had been the other way around, this fanbase would be absolutely furious at the refs.

I agree it's dangerous to land on someone's foot with your full weight on it, but shooters these days can anticipate it happening because they're actively going for it. If you watch instant replays of this stuff, you'll see that when getting ready to land, they're already moving their body weight back so they'll fall at the slightest hint of contact on their feet. You can still hurt your ankle but it's not very likely. Harden especially is a master at this.

I agree with this post. Shooters now WANT to land on defenders feet and simply come down with no weight on their feet so they fall before landing. Defenders are not allowed to defend the 3 ball. Coincidentally (sarcasm) it seems like dudes are making more threes than ever before.

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't think it's fair to demand that the defender essentially gets himself way out of position like that to avoid a "foul". When you do a good close out, you don't overextend. You have to be able to contest the shot but also stay ready for a shot fake / drive.

If the defender jumps straight up when contesting and the shooter takes a 5ft leap forward, landing on the defender's ankle, it should never be a foul. I mean, how could it? How do you avoid that as a defender? The rules say you have a right to stay within your own "cylinder", jumping and landing within it.

Ya plus if you run to the side to contest then the shooter can simply pump fake and now the defender has moved way over to the side to allow a wide open path. As a defender you always want to stay between the ball handler/shooter and the basket. This rule makes defenders either not contest or contest in such a poor way that they are not impeding the offensive players path to the basket.

I understand why the rule exists but it gets abused way too often.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree with this post. Shooters now WANT to land on defenders feet and simply come down with no weight on their feet so they fall before landing. Defenders are not allowed to defend the 3 ball. Coincidentally (sarcasm) it seems like dudes are making more threes than ever. before.

You can remove the sarcasm part. It's real. They know what shots they can take with impunity and this is one of them. As has been stated before, players will find a way to exploit the rules to their advantage. We saw an increase in offense foul calls, so we created a flopping culture. We see an increase in fouls called on 3 point shots, so we see an increase in 3 point shots. It obviously isn't the only factor, but it's not a small part of it. If you are going to get a call on a long 2 just take an extra step back and get the same call with a chance at 3 free throws.

 

[fishonjazz]

As for the clarkson levert play, the pictures posted show that I was wrong about that play. It was a foul and the flagrant made sense.

The problem still exists that many times shooters WANT to land on the defenders feet and land in a way that they wont be injured but can exploit a foul from the refs.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

As for the clarkson levert play, the pictures posted show that I was wrong about that play. It was a foul and the flagrant made sense.

The problem still exists that many times shooters WANT to land on the defenders feet and land in a way that they wont be injured but can exploit a foul from the refs.

That was my point. Levert clearly came straight into Clarksons landing zone. Clearly a foul, and based on rules this year, clearly a flagarant one.

Honestly, having had defenders come under my feet on purpose, a lack of landing zone for a 3 pt shooter is really ******. Clarkson's ejection a couple weeks ago for what appeared to be minor and inadvertent face contact was a flagrant 2, and sure, he raised fists and was kind of a hothead idiot, but imo, the post play reaction should have no bearing on the severity of the foul call. That play call leading to ejection was honestly 10x more absurd.

 

[LogGrad98]

As for the clarkson levert play, the pictures posted show that I was wrong about that play. It was a foul and the flagrant made sense.

The problem still exists that many times shooters WANT to land on the defenders feet and land in a way that they wont be injured but can exploit a foul from the refs.

I guarantee you many players are adding an extra foot to their forward travel on those shots now since those foul calls are so easy to come by. I agree this one was a bigger difference for Levert, so the foul is of course valid by current standards. But it doesn't mean that players like Clarkson haven't fundamentally altered their shots according to what the refs will give them. Same with the tendency to slide sideways if the defender is trying to come over the screen, then magically the offensive player has a sideways slant to his jump to bring him into contact with the defender. Or even backward, we have seen that too. But these are viewed as "natural" movements for the purpose of the rule, so the player can do something completely different in 3 different scenarios to draw the fouls, and it is all viewed as "natural". Obviously the way this is called has changed the way the players react.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Watch some video of Harden drawing a 3pt shooting foul like described above, "landing" on someone's foot.

When you see it at game speed, it's like OH MY GOD HE BROKE HIS ANKLE!! MEDIIIIIIC! WE'RE LOSING HIM!!

But in slo-mo, you see that Harden barely grazes the defender's foot. It just looks bad for the very reason that he's intentionally off balance when landing, so his weight is off his feet.

He's made such an art form out of it that it's almost impossible for a human being not to blow the whistle. It looks sooo real. But it's just smoke and mirrors.

 

[fishonjazz]

I guarantee you many players are adding an extra foot to their forward travel on those shots now since those foul calls are so easy to come by. I agree this one was a bigger difference for Levert, so the foul is of course valid by current standards. But it doesn't mean that players like Clarkson haven't fundamentally altered their shots according to what the refs will give them. Same with the tendency to slide sideways if the defender is trying to come over the screen, then magically the offensive player has a sideways slant to his jump to bring him into contact with the defender. Or even backward, we have seen that too. But these are viewed as "natural" movements for the purpose of the rule, so the player can do something completely different in 3 different scenarios to draw the fouls, and it is all viewed as "natural". Obviously the way this is called has changed the way the players react.

Good point about the screen fouls. If you a chase a player over a screen then the offensive player just has to stop and jump a little to the side (into the trailing defender who is running full speed to get around the screen) and get rewarded for 3 free throws.
Defending the 3 point shot is becoming an impossible task. Just have to hope they miss and go for the defensive rebound.

 

[fishonjazz]

That was my point. Levert clearly came straight into Clarksons landing zone. Clearly a foul, and based on rules this year, clearly a flagarant one.

Honestly, having had defenders come under my feet on purpose, a lack of landing zone for a 3 pt shooter is really ******. Clarkson's ejection a couple weeks ago for what appeared to be minor and inadvertent face contact was a flagrant 2, and sure, he raised fists and was kind of a hothead idiot, but imo, the post play reaction should have no bearing on the severity of the foul call. That play call leading to ejection was honestly 10x more absurd.

Ya in my post you quoted i literally condeded the clarkson play against cleveland lol.
Im more talking in general about the rule. Shooters WANT to land on the defenders feet now. They TRY to land on the defenders feet. They dont need to worry about injury now because they have perfected how to land with no weight and go straight to the floor. Its similar to a flop to manipulate a call from the refs. That is a problem imo.

 

[LogGrad98]

Good point about the screen fouls. If you a chase a player over a screen then the offensive player just has to stop and jump a little to the side (into the trailing defender who is running full speed to get around the screen) and get rewarded for 3 free throws.
Defending the 3 point shot is becoming an impossible task. Just have to hope they miss and go for the defensive rebound.

This is really what the league wants. They want unfettered offense. It is the exciting part of the game, so the more exciting they can make it the better it is to get butts in the seats and lucrative TV deals. So they adjust and change rules to favor the offensive players, and by a lot. I really think the recent rule changes that have resulted in such haphazard calls was done to allow the refs to control the flow of the game. They can call, or not call, damn near anything now. Seemingly with no logic most of the time. We see one play on one end with a flagrant (Ingles brushes the guy's foot trying to get out of the way) then we see a much more egregious foul on the other go uncalled completely (at least 2 times I can think of when Clarkson was completely undercut at the rim and fell hard, a real risk to the playera), and imo the reason it falls like that is only partly on human error, but also partly, if not more so, on controlling the flow of the game. I cannot think of times before the last 2 years that we so often see players looking completely confused at a no-call, as they KNOW it would have been called in the past, only to see the same or an even less-egregious foul being called the other way the very next play. We have seen plays almost stop dead when MULTIPLE players expected a foul call, only to see the refs saying "play on". I think this inconsistency is so they can have more lee-way in controlling the flow of the game, whether it is to get to a specific outcome or not is debatable. But believe me they are trying to create the product the NBA thinks people want to pay for, and if there are 2 things humans thrive on it is "winning" (i.e. favoring the offensive player), and controversy. That draws people back for the drama of it. It is the WWE aspect of the NBA being fully brought to bear to keep interest high. Sadly it is what people are willing to pay for.

 

[Watcher]

game within a game

Did anyone else hear/read that in Boler's voice? haha.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

Ya in my post you quoted i literally condeded the clarkson play against cleveland lol.
Im more talking in general about the rule. Shooters WANT to land on the defenders feet now. They TRY to land on the defenders feet. They dont need to worry about injury now because they have perfected how to land with no weight and go straight to the floor. Its similar to a flop to manipulate a call from the refs. That is a problem imo.

For a while that was true with Harden moves and those have been neutered a lot. Refs largely ignore Olynyk now, even when he gets fouled. Clarkson did jump forward, but it didn't seem too unnatural, he was trying to get to an open spot, and he drained it.

From what I have seen, refs know player tendencies, and look for them. Giricek was called for travel all the time, because the refs knew he moved his pivot before dribbling. Refs know Olynyk flops more than that 12 pound brown trout you caught last week, and they penalize him by not calling even legitimate fouls. Yet Kelly is too ****ing stupid to realize it and would rather flop than fight for a board. It drives me ****ing crazy!

There is a difference between taking advantage of a rule, and flopping as Tremendous tried to relate by moving to Harden. I'm for rules to keep players safe, and I am also for punishing players that continually flop or make unnatural moves. What Clarkson did was in no way that situation.

 

[fishonjazz]

For a while that was true with Harden moves and those have been neutered a lot. Refs largely ignore Olynyk now, even when he gets fouled. Clarkson did jump forward, but it didn't seem too unnatural, he was trying to get to an open spot, and he drained it.

From what I have seen, refs know player tendencies, and look for them. Giricek was called for travel all the time, because the refs knew he moved his pivot before dribbling. Refs know Olynyk flops more than that 12 pound brown trout you caught last week, and they penalize him by not calling even legitimate fouls. Yet Kelly is too ****ing stupid to realize it and would rather flop than fight for a board. It drives me ****ing crazy!

There is a difference between taking advantage of a rule, and flopping as Tremendous tried to relate by moving to Harden. I'm for rules to keep players safe, and I am also for punishing players that continually flop or make unnatural moves. What Clarkson did was in no way that situation.

I agreed about what clarkson did last game already. In fact this is the third time.
What im talking about is many times this season where the defender wasn't coming into the shooters landing space. The defender was in position with a hand up and the shooter jumped way forward and intentionally came down on the defender and fell down and got a call from the refs. Me no likey when that happens. Agree to disagree.

 

[bookworm]

Yes Lavert made stupid plays. I saw replay only watched JC land. Pictures show Lavert also jump forward.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I agreed about what clarkson did last game already. In fact this is the third time.
What im talking about is many times this season where the defender wasn't coming into the shooters landing space. The defender was in position with a hand up and the shooter jumped way forward and intentionally came down on the defender and fell down and got a call from the refs. Me no likey when that happens. Agree to disagree.

Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referencing that to you about Clarkson, I know you agreed on that point. I guess my question is where are the egregious examples over the last few years when they have been calling these? I watch a ton of basketball, and I can't think of a situation where a flagrant was called where the defender didn't enter the shooters landing area.

The rule states that coming under feet isn't automatically flagrant, only if deemed reckless, which coming under the shooter zone in front of them tends to be flagrant this year. I've seen at least a few shots this year where they reviewed and did not call it flagrant. Unnatural motions are supposed to be taken into account, although the NBA tends to allow some leeway on advantaging the shooter based on contact, but the defender on if a foul is flagrant.

This started after Kawhi was injured in the playoffs a few years ago when Zaza undercut him and I think Horford did the same think to M. Morris the same playoffs. Both were overly aggressive with no need to close out as far as they did. Horford did the same damn thing to Curry last year. And Curry spread his legs, but if someone closed out on me I'd probably try to spread my legs unnaturally to avoid contact.

I just have not seen flagrants called unless the defender comes into the shooters landing area. And I know I have seen fouls called but not automatically upgraded where the shooter moved unnaturally, or the defender was already in the landing area. Not sure how they can do it any different. I'd appreciate some examples to show what you are talking about.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referencing that to you about Clarkson, I know you agreed on that point. I guess my question is where are the egregious examples over the last few years when they have been calling these? I watch a ton of basketball, and I can't think of a situation where a flagrant was called where the defender didn't enter the shooters landing area.

The rule states that coming under feet isn't automatically flagrant, only if deemed reckless, which coming under the shooter zone in front of them tends to be flagrant this year. I've seen at least a few shots this year where they reviewed and did not call it flagrant. Unnatural motions are supposed to be taken into account, although the NBA tends to allow some leeway on advantaging the shooter based on contact, but the defender on if a foul is flagrant.

This started after Kawhi was injured in the playoffs a few years ago when Zaza undercut him and I think Horford did the same think to M. Morris the same playoffs. Both were overly aggressive with no need to close out as far as they did. Horford did the same damn thing to Curry last year. And Curry spread his legs, but if someone closed out on me I'd probably try to spread my legs unnaturally to avoid contact.

I just have not seen flagrants called unless the defender comes into the shooters landing area. And I know I have seen fouls called but not automatically upgraded where the shooter moved unnaturally, or the defender was already in the landing area. Not sure how they can do it any different. I'd appreciate some examples to show what you are talking about.

FWIW im not just talking about flagrants. i see plays were shooters jump way far forward to try to land on the defenders feet and get a foul called (no flagrant) where the defender did nothing wrong. Shooter gets 3 free throws. i dont like it.