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.

It's not going to be a foul on the shooter in either situation. The defender does not have LGP, nor is he within his verticality.

Change the plays and have the defender doing the same thing, only not airborne. What do you have?

Foul on the defense. A moving player without LGP who is moving towards the shooter. Defensive player shouldn't be so quick to commit.

I still have a foul on the defense. Defender moves into the path of an airborne shooter - that's a block. Did I miss something?

I'm thinking the first play could be a no-call, Smitty. If the defender is clearly planning to go past the shooter, and shooter moves sideways toward the defender, that's sure not a defensive foul, even if it's not offensive, either. (Hey, look, MTD, those words go well in that sentence!)

On the second one, I think I'd have to be there. If A1 alters his path to draw a foul, I may no-call it, but it's hard to tell from this description.

You could be right - it's just so hard to have the same image of plays when they are described in this way. Judgement call plays are always the hardest to get a mojority agreement on. Even if we all saw the play, we might all have differing opinions on how it should be called.

Everybody has been quick here to say this foul is on the defense. I am going to say HOLD ON! not quite so fast..

Lets go back to our basketball fundamentals. If the defense has jumped first which both at least the first play says and implies in the second. (yes, over committed) He is entitled to the spot on the floor. This is no different than when a defender takes away the landing spot for the offensive shooter. If the landing spot is taken away by the offense then it is a foul on the offensive player.

Why would we let an offensive player commit a foul, that we would clearly call on the defense if the roles were reversed?

Play 1 defense jumps FIRST and will go to side of player and Offense jumps into an airborne defender. I cant see how you would ever call this on the defense... No call a minimum... but offense takes away landing spot by causing contact, jumps into path to draw foul, initiates the contact, and we want to penalize the defender, PC foul may be a harder sell but I think the rules require it.

No. That's my point. The fouls don't change just because the defender is airborne.

By rule, both fouls are on the defense. You may or may not choose to call the first foul. Many officials don't. But by rule, it's a foul on the defense.

A1 drives to the goal for a jumpshot from the baseline and jumps forward just outside the key with the ball outstretched for the try. B1 anticipates A1's drive and moves across the lane and also jumps to block A1's try attempt. Both A1 and B1 leave the floor simultaneously and are airborne moving towards each other. Contact is made at the midway point between the two players at the heights of their jumps and the try is successful. No call or call on whom?

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]

One of the better threads I've seen on this board. Made my think.

I agree that the defender puts himself at a disadvantage when he leaves the floor. I'd hate to call the foul in these cases, but wouldn't hesitate.

This is a very good point.....

I have to agree with this position in Play 1. If it is clear that B1's path will take him pass A1 without contact, and A1 jumps INTO his path I have nothing or a player control foul on A1 (probably nothing).

Now...in Play 2, I have a foul on B1. If B1 complains...I just quote my boss "Sucks to be you." :D

Ok...probably wouldn't say that to B1...but I would think it.

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!! :)

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.

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.

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.

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

Rule book citation, Malcolm?

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

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

We could sure use it sometimes!

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.

Fwiw, I agree with Kelvin on this one. If the defender jumps first, and his established jumping path would miss the shooter if the shooter didn't move, then the shooter can't jump after and into the defender--no matter what Reggie Miller says. The shooter has the same rights as any other player on the floor-- the "cone of vericality" :D above his head and also a landing spot if he jumps <b>before</b> 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".

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.

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.

Agree. And if the defender gets to the spot first and the dribbler then collides with him, I have a foul on the dribbler.

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.

If B1 is jumping from that spot yeah, but in these two plays B1 is not.

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.

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.

Rules citation to back that statement up, please.

Are you saying that a player jumping forward for a rebound can be undercut?

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.

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.

Re: shooter jumps into airborne defender
 

Welcome to the forum,bellyache.

If you have a rule or case book citation that would clarify this little disagreement,could you please help us out and cite it?