|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 08:02am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 above his head and also a landing spot if he jumps before a defender is in his jumping path. Iow, I kinda like rule 4.44.7- "The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules".
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 08:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why is this different than a situation where both players are running?
Two players, on with the ball and dribbling and a defender, on a collision course, although the dribbler started moving to the point of collision AFTER the defender. The dribbler gets to the spot first and the defender collides with him. I have a foul on the defender. I see no difference in the sirborne situation. Now, if the defender jumps and is by the shooter and the shooter jumps into him, I agree. But if the defender jumps, the shooter jumps, and the shooter gets to the spot "in the air" first, I have a foul on the defender. It happens all the time and everyone here has called that foul on the defender. It's just one reason coaches teach their defense to not leave their feet.
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 08:46am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just about every blocking foul is by a player getting to a spot before the other player, but not being legally entitled to that spot. If A1 and B1 are on intersecting paths, establishment of the point of intersection is critical to making the correct call either the block or the charge. In the play situation, B1, the defensive player has chosen a path and established it (jumping in the air to a new spot). At the time of the jump of B1, there was no collision course between A1 and B1. While B1 is in the air, A1 chooses a path that causes a collision. What you have is a blocking foul on A1 even though A1 has the ball! If the ball possession were reversed and B1 jumps first with the ball and A1 cuts under him after the jump - everyone of you would call a blocking foul. Legal guarding position has nothing to do with this play.
4-7-1 "Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball." A1 chose to impede the progress of B1. The fact A1 has the ball should not matter. If A1 and B1 were committed to intersecting paths, then an airborn leap by B1 would not save him from a foul if A1 were to get to the spot of intersection first. The big difference in my opinion is A1 choosing a new path to cause the contact. I am with JR and Kevin on this one.
__________________
I only wanna know ...
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 08:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Which is why I see no difference in the airborne situation either. The defender got to the spot first, and the shooter jumped into him.
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 02:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm seeing both plays as A1 having the ball near the 3 point line and B1 starting from the block opposite. A1 starts to move toward the basket and B1 runs across the lane and jumps from the block nearest A1, moving parallel to the endline, A1 jumps moving toward the basket and into the path of B1's jump...that was not started from a LGP and is not vertical. The difference is in play #1, I'm going to apply 4-44-7 even though B1 is not vertical, because A1 initiated contact by altering their path to the basket. As described I think most of us would no-call play #1. In play #2 B1 without LGP or verticality is IN the direct path of A1. That one is a block 100% of the time.
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 03:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've got a foul on B1 in both cases. What some people aren't realizing is that a player is only entitled to a landing spot if he/she is jumping vertically. Only an airborne shooter is entitled to any landing spot they want (assuming the defense isn't in position before the shooter left the floor). All players aren't treated equally. The defense has the burden of establishing and maintaining legal guarding position. When B1 jumps out of his/her vertical plane they have given up their LGP and thus they are responsible for any contact. The rule book states that a player is entitled to a spot on the floor, not a langding spot, provided they get there without illegal contact and this examples are definitely not without illegal contact.
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 04:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Are you saying that a player jumping forward for a rebound can be undercut?
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 04:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll have to get the rule number when I get home to look it up. A player jumping for a rebound is a totally different situation because there isn't any team control and, thus, not extra regulations on the defense. Plus, in that situation, to be undercut implies that both players would be moving out of their initial position. If a player jumps for a rebound and another player moves underneath him/her, i've got a foul on the player underneath.
|
|
Sun Jan 23, 2005, 01:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
shooter jumps into airborne defender
have you looked in the case/rules book(s) to help yourself? if so please quote what has you confused. these situations happen in pratically every game.
__________________
only dumb questions are those not ask! well................
|
|
Sun Jan 23, 2005, 01:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: shooter jumps into airborne defender
Quote:
If you have a rule or case book citation that would clarify this little disagreement,could you please help us out and cite it?
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
