Shooter landing on a player who flopped

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A defender is allowed to take any spot on the floor provided that he gets there legally, which means without using illegal contact to reach the spot and arrives before any time or distance restrictions.

For guarding an airborne opponent, the defender must have obtained his spot on the floor before the opponent became airborne.

Now we can analyze your situations. If the defender falls to the floor prior to the shooter jumping, the defender has a legal spot, and it is not a defensive foul when the shooter subsequently lands on him. It could be an offensive fouls though.
If the defender falls backwards after the shooter is airborne, he has not met the requirement to be in his spot on the floor before the opponent went airborne. Therefore, it is a blocking foul if the shooter lands on this defender.

I disagree. A defender is only required to obtain a legal position (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the opponent jumps. After having that, they are still permitted to move (as long as it is not into the opponent), duck, turn, etc. to absorb the imminent contact. Leaning back is nothing more than that. If the opponent still contacts them, nothing the defender did created that contact.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. A defender is only required to obtain a legal position (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the opponent jumps. After having that, they are still permitted to move (as long as it is not into the opponent), duck, turn, etc. to absorb the imminent contact. Leaning back is nothing more than that. If the opponent still contacts them, nothing the defender did created that contact.

Camron,
I'm not talking about leaning backwards at the time of contact. We agree that is fine. I'm discussing falling backwards to the floor prior to contact such that the player now occupies a different location on the playing court.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron,
I'm not talking about leaning backwards at the time of contact. We agree that is fine. I'm discussing falling backwards to the floor prior to contact such that the player now occupies a different location on the playing court.

Isn't falling just advanced leaning? As long as it is away from the opponent and not into the opponents path, how does it change?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't falling just advanced leaning? As long as it is away from the opponent and not into the opponents path, how does it change?

Per the rules, player location is determined by where a player is in contact with the floor (or was last in contact with the floor if airborne). Therefore, leaning backward and actually falling to the floor are different. The player obtains a new location on the court.

[BryanV21]

Once a shooter goes airborne, shouldn't we be talking in terms of the defender's verticality? Not his location on the court?

By leaning backwards after the shooter goes airborne they are no longer vertical, and any subsequent contact is on the defender.

If this were a question about a block/charge call, instead of a possible shooting foul, then the thing about not moving towards the offensive player would come into affect. No?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Once a shooter goes airborne, shouldn't we be talking in terms of the defender's verticality? Not his location on the court?

By leaning backwards after the shooter goes airborne they are no longer vertical, and any subsequent contact is on the defender.

If this were a question about a block/charge call, instead of a possible shooting foul, then the thing about not moving towards the offensive player would come into affect. No?

Verticality and location always apply.

And, a "block/charge call" can be a "shooting foul."

I'm really not sure what you are asking, here.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Verticality and location always apply.

And, a "block/charge call" can be a "shooting foul."

I'm really not sure what you are asking, here.

Is it verticality you're looking for here instead of the defender's location on the court?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. A defender is only required to obtain a legal position (in the path, two feet down, facing) before the opponent jumps. After having that, they are still permitted to move (as long as it is not into the opponent), duck, turn, etc. to absorb the imminent contact. Leaning back is nothing more than that. If the opponent still contacts them, nothing the defender did created that contact.

Camron:

Thanks. You beat me to it.

MTD, Sr.