It occurs to me watching the NCAA that the shooter is the least protected player on the court.

Example1: Dribbler is driving to the hoop and starts to jump. Dribbler still has one foot on the floor as the defender slides into his path and obtains "legal guarding position" before the dribbler (now shooter) becomes airborne. Although the shooter hasn't left the floor, it is impossible at this point for him to change direction and avoid contact. The inevitable contact is *correctly* called a player control foul.

Example2: A screener takes position so close to a moving opponent
that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction.
A foul is *correctly* called on the screener.

So why isn't the shooter afforded the same rights as everyone else on the floor? Do you guys see these rules as somewhat inconsistent?


http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

Personal Fouls

Section 19. By Dribbler
(snip)
A.R. 20. A player who is guarding moves into the path of a dribbler and contact
occurs. RULING: Either player may be responsible, but the greater responsibility
shall be that of the dribbler when the player who is guarding conforms to the following
principles that officials shall use in reaching a decision. The defensive player
shall be assumed to have attained a guarding position when the defensive player is
in the dribbler' path facing him or her. When the defensive player jumps into position,
both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he or she can have
attained a guarding position. **No specific stance or distance shall be required.** The
guard may shift to maintain his or her position in the path of the dribbler, provided
that the player who is guarding does not charge into the dribbler nor otherwise cause
contact as outlined in this section. The responsibility of the dribbler for contact shall
not shift merely because the player who is guarding turns or ducks to absorb shock
when contact caused by the dribbler is imminent. The player who is guarding shall
not cause contact by moving under or in front of a passer or thrower after the passer
or thrower is in the air with his or her feet off the floor.

Section 20. By Screener
(snip)
Art. 3. A screener shall not take a position so close to a moving opponent
that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction.

The rules are differetn for a player with the ball and a player without the ball. shrug.

It is inappropriate to apply screening rules to a player with the ball. People getting screened are concentrating on staying with a player, when a third player comes into play. They did not choose the path they follow, it is primarily determined by the player who is cutting. Defenders need to be given an adeqate chance to avoid the screener. Dribblers are expected, by rule as well as by their coaches, to see the area they are penetrating very clearly and to note when obstacles are coming into their path. If they are unaware of a defender who will soon be directly in their path, it is their fault alone.

So why when a player has committed are they not afforded the right to run into an opponent? First, you need a clear dividing point, and that is the point they leave the floor. You cannot alter direction when your feet are off the floor, so you cannot foul a player who comes into your path when you are airborn. For any other situation where a player may need to change his mind, if his foot is on the floor, he may be able to change his path depending on his athleticism. That is not true for the player who has jumped.

Also, if an opponent slides into position, he is moving to that position before the player is physically committed to jump. If the shooter makes a choice that turns out to be bad because the defender sets in time, we don't really worry about when the shooter reached the point of no return, nor should we. He should have known the risk he was taking, and therefore made a better decision. He should not have committed to a jump that he could not legally make.

The player with the ball should know that someone is going to try to stop his shot. He should see the defenders approaching. He's the one in control of the game. Everyone else is reacting to what he does.

Coach, well said.

Coach,
They can apply, but will they be called?
The dribbler (link below) saw and cut the defender, causing intentional contact, but got called for traveling. So in this case, <I>in my opinion</I> ;), the screening rules perfectly applied, though not enforced.
mick

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/12922

"Also, if an opponent slides into position, he is moving to that position before the player is physically committed to jump."

Not often true. Defenders may be waiting, and just as the
the shooter commits they slide into his path. Again, I think the point here is that the shooter starts his jump to an open space, but before the second foot leaves the ground the defender slides.

"First, you need a clear dividing point, and that is the point they leave the floor. You cannot alter direction when your feet are off the floor..."

Well, often, depending on speed, you cannot alter direction
enough to avoid contact after one foot leaves the floor. Yet the defender can still legally be moving. The point here is that officials are given leeway on screens based on speed, but not a shot.

"People getting screened are concentrating on staying with a player, when a third player comes into play."

More often than not it is a second or third defender that draws a charge on a shooter, not the primary defender. Why is that different than a third party screen? Moreover, at the point the shooter initiates his jump, his attention moves to the rim.

Say what you will, but scores are going down and this is one interpretation that has evolved over the years to favor the defense. You can say the current interpretation is better, but gate receipts (even at the HS level) don't
agree.

Billy -- First of all, it can happen so fast, I'm not sure most refs can make that kind of distinction between one feet or both feet off the ground.. What I look for is the sideways motion of the defender, and then a more-or-less on the feet of the shooter.

Second, why is this thread called Pete's Post?

Third, I don't think gate receipts are a big issue for refs.

See McGriffs. ;)

This particular rule has been a rule for as long as I can remember. So I don't understand how this one rule, enforced at best a couple of times per game, is having a negative impact on scoring. What has had a negative impact is the shift toward faster players who can cover more court quickly. The move toward faster players was precipitated primarily by the creation of 3 point line, which in turn had intended to make the game more exciting by opening it up a bit. Watch some of the Big Monday games from the mid 80s for examples of my-post-player-is-bigger-and-stronger-than-your-post-player basketball that prevailed before the line came into being to see why they created the line.

But creation of the line meant that teams needed players that could cover that area better than before - hence the quicker player phenomenon. Now you have incredibly quick and talented defensive players, a very fast paced game, and I would argue that it is a more exciting game now than 15 years ago. Scoring might be slightly higher if the best players stayed the full four years, and fan interest might also increase.

But overall, I think that there is so much that has changed that you can't pin declining gates on one factor. I think that the saturation of sports programming has had a negative impact on gates, as well as on the viewership of any individual game that is televised. But I have no more data to back that conclusion than you have to blame it on changes in rule interpretations that favor the defense.

Well, I guess it's a rules question. I'm not saying refs are calling it wrong, I'm saying the rule isn't balanced and it favors the D. I think the rule should be the same in regard to offense and defense.

Yes, I see your point, now, although I think I disagree. The rule is that whoever gets there first legally gets the spot. To get there legally, you must be completely "there". In otherwords, defender must not be still sliding. The part about being there before the shooter leaves the floor is for the safety of the shooter, and actually favors the offense, at least a lttle. If the shooter is planning to travel 12 ground feet, on the way to the lay-in, or dunk, or whatever, he needs to be able to plan on a safe landing. So he actually gets the distance of about 4 steps, if he does it all in the air.

Thanks, but no. I'm done there.

"Section 20. By Screener
(snip)
Art. 3. A screener shall not take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction."

The player with the ball gets no such consideration when a second or third defender steps in. How can you say this "favors" the offense?

Billy
DO NOT look for the rule on screens to be equivalent to the rule for a ball handler. This is a huge mistake. So take the rule for an offensive player with the ball by itself (not in comparison to another unrelated rule), and see who gets the advantage most of the time. I would argue that it is the offensive player who has the advantage.

The defensive player has all sorts of criteria they must meet to draw a foul. Offensive players with the ball are given almost free license to initate contact with a defender who hasn't established legal guarding position.

And the airborn rule doesn't even have to exist, as rainmaker points out. the rule could be that you have to be sure you will have a landing spot when you take off, and are responsible for contact if the defender is moving to the spot and will clearly get there before you launch. You see it all the time at the highest levels where the defender is clearly trying to take the charge and the offensive player launches at him knowing he will get a block. I agree with juulie, this favors the offense by far.