Up and Under Move

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Most good defenders go straight up. I'm amazed at how many times a shooter jumps into a vertical defender and his coach wants me to call the foul on the defender. Guaranteed, however, if I called it that way on the other end; he'd be screaming about verticality.

You're kidding, right?

I would guesstimate that defenders jump within their vertical plane slightly less than half the time.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not that it has any effect on the ruling, but defenders are coached not to leave their feet because leaving your feet is a great way to watch the would-have-been shooter drive around you and get a layup.

Yes, that's one reason. Another reason is that defender's leave their feet, jump at the shooter and foul him.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Still disagree. The guard jumping at the shooter would not have initiated illegal contact at any time before landing if the shooter hadn't moved under the defender after he became airborne.

The way that I read it, I'd call this one on the shooter.

So you disagree with the rule book. Okay.

I'll bet it's happened hundreds of times to you and you've never called it on the shooter.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Because the shooter hasn't started to go anywhere when the defender jumped. If the shooter hadn't have moved in and under the defender after the defender was in the air, there would have been no contact.

And we're still waiting on the rule cite.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If no one is in front of you when you jump, aren't you entitled to land? You're forgetting that the shooter wasn't vertical either. The shooter moved under the airborne defender after the defender had already jumped.

The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Am I missing something?

No, you're not missing anything.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You're kidding, right?
I would guesstimate that defenders jump within their vertical plane slightly less than half the time.

That's why I qualified it with "most good defenders." I know, I know. Tautology.

[Carl Cramer]

For what it's worth, I have never seen this play called a foul on the shooter. Not once ever.

Have you?

[Huntin' Ref]

Originally Posted by Carl Cramer

For what it's worth, I have never seen this play called a foul on the shooter. Not once ever.

Have you?

With the defender jumping towards the offensive player????

NOPE, and I'll never call it. He has left LGP.

[Kelvin green]

I have to agree with JR... did some searching in the rule book but they have taken the Comments on the Rules out. It used to be there...The principles are always the same..

Every player is entitled to the spot on the floor provided they get there first.

Once a player jumps, there landing spot has been established and they are entitled to that spot to land.

Faking the defensive player up and then going under him (unless they are so close the defender would have surely fallen on the offender) is no different than a defender sliding under an airborne shooter after the airborne shooter has jumped.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Every player is entitled to the spot on the floor provided they get there first.

Once a player jumps, there landing spot has been established and they are entitled to that spot to land.

This just doesn't seem right to me. Guard steps in front of driving shooter, you've got a block. If he jumps to the same spot, now it's a charge?

[Kelvin green]

I am not sure what you are referring to...


stepping in front of a driving shooter you have a block, and if the defender jumps in front of him it is a charge.

Everything in the defensive principles is about time, space, legal guarding position.. On a player with the ball there is no time or space. Need to establish LGP whether you step or jump. You can step to maintain LGP...

If an airborne shooter drives and jumps and defender moves in, it is a block because defender was not there at the time the offensive player left the floor

I am definitely not sure where you are going with this...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This just doesn't seem right to me. Guard steps in front of driving shooter, you've got a block. If he jumps to the same spot, now it's a charge?

The difference is the the shooter isn't driving. The shooter is standing still, and then moves up and under the defender after the defender went airborne. If the shooter had remained standing still after the shooter went airborne, there would have been no contact.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I am definitely not sure where you are going with this...

So you're sure you're not sure?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The difference is the the shooter isn't driving. The shooter is standing still, and then moves up and under the defender after the defender went airborne. If the shooter had remained standing still after the shooter went airborne, there would have been no contact.

Interesting. It sounds as if you're saying that the guard was first to the spot on the floor in virtue of being above it first, not being on it first (the shooter is on it first).

Then, perhaps, verticality applies downward in this case? I'm still trying to fit your conclusion to the rule you cited.

I think the room is spinning...

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Interesting. It sounds as if you're saying that the guard was first to the spot on the floor in virtue of being above it first, not being on it first (the shooter is on it first).

Then, perhaps, verticality applies downward in this case? I'm still trying to fit your conclusion to the rule you cited.

I think the room is spinning...

Nah. I think what he's saying is that any airborne player is entitled to a spot to land and that the offensive player took away that spot after the defender went airborne. Of course, along with that it would seem that he's implying that the path of an airborne player to his/her landing spot is also "restricted air space" and that any player who moves to occupy it is responsible for the contact. Is that a fair summary, JR?

I still don't get the distinction between a driving offensive player, and one that just moves up and under. If the defensive player with LGP were to make a leap forward toward a driving offensive player, such that they collided before the defender hit the ground, wouldn't this constitute essentially the same play?

[crazy voyager]

now lets se if I got this right.
Shooter fakes, defender goes up (not jumping straight at the shooter but not jumping straight up either). The defenders to be landing spot is unoccupied right? (if not the below would be wrong)
and then the shooter moves in under the defender to the spot where he's going to land. and then the defender lands on top?

If that is what happens I have an offensive foul.
33.6 Airborne player
*skipping bits not importent right now*
A player may not move into an opponents path after the opponent has jumped and is airbornde.

to move in under a jumping opponent, so contact occurs, is mostly an unsportsmanlike foul. Under certain circumstance it can be judged as Disqualifying

So this could even be a U or D, but no foul on the defender (if I've got the situation right anyway)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Nah. I think what he's saying is that any airborne player is entitled to a spot to land and that the offensive player took away that spot after the defender went airborne. Of course, along with that it would seem that he's implying that the path of an airborne player to his/her landing spot is also "restricted air space" and that any player who moves to occupy it is responsible for the contact. Is that a fair summary, JR?

Fair and accurate, BITS. It's exactly the same concept as an airborne shooter. The defender can't move up and under him legally either after he's left his feet.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Fair and accurate, BITS. It's exactly the same concept as an airborne shooter. The defender can't move up and under him legally either after he's left his feet.

I'm still puzzling over why exactly there should be a difference between a dribbler driving to the basket and the defender jumping forward and the driver contacting him in the air; and this up and under move. However, I note with interest:

"A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact. If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent. If a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble. The dribbler should not be permitted additional rights in executing a jump try for goal, pivoting, feinting or in starting a dribble."

The gist of the first half of that seems to be that the dribbler must avoid situations where he/she is very likely to create contact because the defense has obviously cut off a particular path. If the dribbler puts him/herself in a position where he/she cannot reasonably be expected to succeed, the greater responsibility for the contact is on the dribbler. And in the case of the dribbler simply pivoting so that the airborne defender must land on him/her, it would seem to meet the gist of the rule. And the final sentence certainly brings home the point that this feinting and pivoting doesn't earn him/her any extra protection.

But if rather than pivoting under the guard, the dribbler jumped to attempt a shot, even if he/she jumped forward as far as he/she pivoted in the other scenario, and there was contact between the guard, who is flying toward the shooter, and the shooter, we've got a very definite foul on the defense because his movement is toward the shooter at the time of contact.

I can't seem to reconcile these two very similar situations.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I have not thoroughly read everyone's comments ... perhaps I'm a little over anxious to enter the discussion.

In the original post I had the feeling that the defender jumped toward the shooter and would eventually land on the shooter. This situation is a freebie for the shooter - any contact with the defender is going to get the shooter free-throws.

I believe JR read the OP to say that the defender would NOT land on the shooter and that while the defender was in the air, the shooter then moved INTO the position where the defender would land. I feel JR is correct in calling this contact on the shooter.

Once a player is airborne, they are going to land in a particular spot; that is the physics of the situation - they cannot change directions while they are in the air. If another player moves into the landing spot, the contact was then initiated by the player moving into the landing spot and the foul, if called, must be assessed to them.

Put the ball in opposite hands. If the shooter has a clear path to the basket and commits himself to that clear path (jumps toward the basket), then a defender moves into the path such that the shooter cannot avoid the collision, we call a block and assess the "defender" with a foul.

I think both sides of this discussion are simply interpretting the OP a slight bit differently.