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

[bookworm]

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.

 

[Agent#00]

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.

jc is one of those smart foul-baiting 3pt shooters out there. he knows you're coming and he have enough wits and power to shoot after contact. he occasionally make those 4pt plays

 

[hgb]

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.

It's natural to jump forward when you shoot, and Lavert was not vertical, he was coming forward too. This obviously wouldn't have been a flagrant some years ago, but the way they call them now it was correct IMHO. They did review the call, after all. It wasn't a split second mistake.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

It's natural to jump forward when you shoot, and Lavert was not vertical, he was coming forward too. This obviously wouldn't have been a flagrant some years ago, but the way they call them now it was correct IMHO. They did review the call, after all. It wasn't a split second mistake.

Yep, Levert actually came under Clarkson's back/left foot, which was only about a foot in front of the FT line. Levert clearly continued towards and into Clarkson's space on the shot.

Having had a couple of severe sprains myself from defenders not giving me space to land, I think it is a good rule. Levert made a bunch of bonehead plays, which is not surprising. He is awful.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Yep, Levert actually came under Clarkson's back/left foot, which was only about a foot in front of the FT line. Levert clearly continued towards and into Clarkson's space on the shot.

Having had a couple of severe sprains myself from defenders not giving me space to land, I think it is a good rule. Levert made a bunch of bonehead plays, which is not surprising. He is awful.

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.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

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.

Watch the play again.

L2M Report

official.nba.com

Levert closed out a greater distance while Clarkson was in the air than Clarkson did with forward momentum. Levert went straight towards him. If Levert was already in the landing zone when Clarkson jumped, then I'd agree. That was not the case.

Hell, even if the contact was to Jordan's right foot that extended a ways past the line, I could see a ref stating he had room to land and caused contact. Look carefully, it was actually Jordan's back foot that landed on Levert's foot, about a foot over the line. Levert simply closed out poorly.

The second call on Levert was more borderline, but the L2M report maintained it was the right call as Levert did cause contact.

​

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Watch the play again.

L2M Report

official.nba.com

Levert closed out a greater distance while Clarkson was in the air than Clarkson did with forward momentum. Levert went straight towards him. If Levert was already in the landing zone when Clarkson jumped, then I'd agree. That was not the case.

Hell, even if the contact was to Jordan's right foot that extended a ways past the line, I could see a ref stating he had room to land and caused contact. Look carefully, it was actually Jordan's back foot that landed on Levert's foot, about a foot over the line. Levert simply closed out poorly.

The second call on Levert was more borderline, but the L2M report maintained it was the right call as Levert did cause contact.

​

Yeah, I'm aware that LeVert is pretty bad at closing out, the rules being what they are now. But what I'm saying is that this whole thing is absurd. When the simple act of taking a 3pt shot becomes a game within a game and the rules are weaponized, something is very wrong. It's all just another form of flopping.

The worst thing is that not only are the refs going along with it, they're actively encouraging it.

 

[HermanG]

Yeah, I'm aware that LeVert is pretty bad at closing out, the rules being what they are now. But what I'm saying is that this whole thing is absurd. When the simple act of taking a 3pt shot becomes a game within a game and the rules are weaponized, something is very wrong. It's all just another form of flopping.

The worst thing is that not only are the refs going along with it, they're actively encouraging it.

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.

 

[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.