The Official Forum - Shooter jumps into the airborne defender

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Shooter jumps into the airborne defender (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/17750-shooter-jumps-into-airborne-defender.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by Kelvin green

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by zanzibar
I have 2 similar cases.
Case 1: B1 is running out to defend the jump shot. B1 is going "nearly" straight at the shooter A1. B1 jumps about 5 feet forward to contest the shot but clearly is going past the shooter without contact. B1 does jump first. The shooter jumps sideways and creates contact. Who is the foul on?

Case 2: Similar case. B1 is running out to defend the jump shot. This time B1 does not take a path beside the shooter, but is going straight at the shooter. B1 has body control when he jumps to contest the shot. B1's body is going to stop about a foot before he gets to the shooter. B1 is clearly not going to make contact with A1 the shooter if A1 goes straight up with the shot. If A1 jumps forward into B1, who is the foul on?

Summation:
It seems to me that an airborne player can not change his path or to backup, therefore it should be a foul on the shooter in these cases. I hear other opinions. Help would be appreciated.

Jumping first does not matter here.

If B1 runs out to defend, hits the spot with both feet on the floor facing A1, then jumps, and does that BEFORE A1 leaves the floor it is different.

You have horizontality by B1, not verticality in your descriptions.

Anytime a defender jumps or moves toward a shooter they put themselves at risk.

[Edited by blindzebra on Jan 19th, 2005 at 03:35 PM]

I'm with you - a defender gets verticality, but not horizontality (is that a word?). If the defender is is moving horizontally into the path of a shooter, it's a block every time.

Jumping First does not matter? What?

A Player is entitled to jump and is entitled to a spot to come down unless that spot was occupied at the time of the jump. If a player jumps and a player (dont care if it is offensive or defensive takes away the landing spot you have a foul) We call thi on the defense all the time! An offensive player with the ball jumps toward basket and then a defensive player jumps in, slides in, bumps we calla foul. In this play the tides are reversed and why would the fundamantals of the game change.

By the logic posed here a defensive player jumps, a player with the ball can take away any landing spot, can undercut, can do anything because the defender is not jumping vertical. There is no way this position can be defended by rule.

Even in case 2 the player jumps, the case states that the player will be short by a foot and then A jumps to draw a foul. If this is the case as defined the spot for the player to come down was established the moment he jumped. It was unoccupied space on the floor and now A jumps up and into this space and took away the defense's landing spot. Call this on the defense and you then better not call a foul when this happens the other way, but you will when A jumps first!

I will repeat fundamentals. Everyone is entitled to a space on floor. Anone who jumps is entiteled to a landing space, the landing space is determined when player jumps. As long as a player was not in landing spot at time of jump there cannot be a foul on player who jumped.

Where in the rules does it state a player jumping first can't foul?

The defense needs LGP and verticality, in both these plays B1 has neither.

Play #1 is a case of two wrongs, and most likely a no-call by most officials.

Play #2 is a block 100% of the time.

Neither play, short of a clear out move by A1, is ever a PC foul by rule.

So, blindzebra, you are saying that the defense is NOT entitled to a landing spot? I understand your argument, and would agree with you if not for the landing spot counterpoint. I've run this play visually through my head, and I couldn't see myself calling a PC, but I think that there is a valid argument for doing so.

Ask Rick pitino what he thinks...

This play is the very one that beat him when they played kentucky this year... sparks for kentucky shot faked and got louisville's player in the air but was clearly going to miss to the side of him on the shot, but sparks jumped sideways to cause contact and he got 3 freethrows for doing so.. kentucky wins.. although i'm glad my cats won, i don't know if i agree with the foul or not, Not to mention sparks traveled twice, (shuffled his feet twice) before he actually got the shot off!! :)

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra
Play #1 is a case of two wrongs, and most likely a no-call by most officials.

BLARGE!

What if the offensive player wasn't shooting but dribbling down the floor. If a defender jumps into his path do we penalize the offensive player because he dribbled into the defender's landing spot. NO and the answer should be no every time. It all goes back to LGP which has been mentioned enough in this thread so I won't expound on that aspect. Simple put the defense has to control its manner of defending and jumping all over the place puts a defender at risk of fouling.

Quote:

Originally posted by PA Official
So, blindzebra, you are saying that the defense is NOT entitled to a landing spot?

It has nothing to do with a landing spot. The contact occurs prior to the landing spot coming into play. The shooter doesn't occupy the space where B will be landing.

Quote:

Originally posted by PA Official
So, blindzebra, you are saying that the defense is NOT entitled to a landing spot? I understand your argument, and would agree with you if not for the landing spot counterpoint. I've run this play visually through my head, and I couldn't see myself calling a PC, but I think that there is a valid argument for doing so.

No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying B1 left the floor without LGP or verticality and puts themselves at the mercy of A1 and the officials.

So you are saying that if A (offense) leaves floor then the defense can take away the landing spot without a foul!

Players leave the floor (without LGP all the time) and are entitled to a spot to land.

Quote me a rule that states that defensive player jumps at his/her own risk. That you must have LGP to jump as a defender, and that a dribbler or shooter can take that away from a defender.

This has everything to do with landing spot! When Defense jumps firts he is entitled to his spot to come down. If another player jumps into the path, creates contact, and in doing so takes away the opportunity to come down, you cannot penalize the player. We get paid to make the judgement of who was entitled to the spot first and who gets there first. If a defender jumps and tries to get to path of dribbler and gets there first, we have a PC foul. (assuming that in jumping in front of dribbler there is LGP)

By this logic you could fake get a defender in the air and undercut him because he may have not jumped vertically. Good Luck explaining that a torpedo by the offense is not a foul because the jumper did not have LGP and that he left his feet at his own risk and did not jump straight up, the offense under cut him, dropped him to the floor, because he is not entitled to jump to play defense, not entitled to land because he jumped forward. NO WAY!

Gues we'll have to agree to disagree but at least i can support my justification by rule whereas calling this a block 100% of the time cannot be justified by rule.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kelvin green
So you are saying that if A (offense) leaves floor then the defense can take away the landing spot without a foul!

Players leave the floor (without LGP all the time) and are entitled to a spot to land.

Quote me a rule that states that defensive player jumps at his/her own risk. That you must have LGP to jump as a defender, and that a dribbler or shooter can take that away from a defender.

This has everything to do with landing spot! When Defense jumps firts he is entitled to his spot to come down. If another player jumps into the path, creates contact, and in doing so takes away the opportunity to come down, you cannot penalize the player. We get paid to make the judgement of who was entitled to the spot first and who gets there first. If a defender jumps and tries to get to path of dribbler and gets there first, we have a PC foul. (assuming that in jumping in front of dribbler there is LGP)

By this logic you could fake get a defender in the air and undercut him because he may have not jumped vertically. Good Luck explaining that a torpedo by the offense is not a foul because the jumper did not have LGP and that he left his feet at his own risk and did not jump straight up, the offense under cut him, dropped him to the floor, because he is not entitled to jump to play defense, not entitled to land because he jumped forward. NO WAY!

Gues we'll have to agree to disagree but at least i can support my justification by rule whereas calling this a block 100% of the time cannot be justified by rule.

What rule(s) do you have to support your opinion? You have not stated one.

I have 4-23-1, 2, 3, and 4, 4-44-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and 10-6-note which says, if B1 JUMPS both feet must return to the floor for them to have guarding position to take a foul.

I dont have my books with me but I do know that ---4-23-1
Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. _ we all know it that when a player jumps they have picked their spot to come down. Player is taking away spot...

Gues we'll have to agree to disagree

Quote:

Originally posted by zanzibar
I have 2 similar cases.
Case 1: B1 is running out to defend the jump shot. B1 is going "nearly" straight at the shooter A1. B1 jumps about 5 feet forward to contest the shot but clearly is going past the shooter without contact. B1 does jump first. The shooter jumps sideways and creates contact. Who is the foul on?

I guess this is a hypothetical. How does B1 plan to defend a jump shot if the offensive player has not commenced a jump shot.

Technical foul on B1 for being dumb
Technical foul on shooter for being dumber

Case 2: Similar case. B1 is running out to defend the jump shot. This time B1 does not take a path beside the shooter, but is going straight at the shooter. B1 has body control when he jumps to contest the shot. B1's body is going to stop about a foot before he gets to the shooter. B1 is clearly not going to make contact with A1 the shooter if A1 goes straight up with the shot. If A1 jumps forward into B1, who is the foul on?

This is simple and still dumb but its a block same as if it happened on the ground. B1 still moving forward when contact made.

Summation:
It seems to me that an airborne player can not change his path or to backup, therefore it should be a foul on the shooter in these cases. I hear other opinions. Help would be appreciated.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malcolm Tucker

Quote:

Originally posted by zanzibar
I have 2 similar cases.
Case 1: B1 is running out to defend the jump shot. B1 is going "nearly" straight at the shooter A1. B1 jumps about 5 feet forward to contest the shot but clearly is going past the shooter without contact. B1 does jump first. The shooter jumps sideways and creates contact. Who is the foul on?

I guess this is a hypothetical. How does B1 plan to defend a jump shot if the offensive player has not commenced a jump shot.

Technical foul on B1 for being dumb
Technical foul on shooter for being dumber

Rule book citation, Malcolm?

Do you not have the "dumb foul" in your list of appropriate technical foul situations.

How sad...............

Quote:

Originally posted by Malcolm Tucker
Do you not have the "dumb foul" in your list of appropriate technical foul situations.

How sad...............

We could sure use it sometimes!

Quote:

Originally posted by Kelvin green
I dont have my books with me but I do know that ---4-23-1
Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. _ we all know it that when a player jumps they have picked their spot to come down. Player is taking away spot...

Gues we'll have to agree to disagree

Every player is entitled to a spot that they get to first WITHOUT illegally contacting an opponent. B1 DOES not have a spot on the floor to be entitled to because they are not on the floor and they did not jump toward that spot LEGALLY by all the rules I cited.