Up and Under Move

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See rule 10-6-3NOTE- "The guard may not cause contact by moving under or in front of a passer or thrower after he or she is in the air with both feet off the ground". That statement holds true for all offensive/defensive situations.

This rule applies to guarding, which is a defensive posture.

Where is the rule that applies to the offensive player?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

This rule applies to guarding, which is a defensive posture.

Where is the rule that applies to the offensive player?

NFHS rule 4-37-3.

Are you disagreeing with the general calling philosophy? As it applies to...say...rebounding, for instance?

How would you call the original play? Foul on the shooter? Foul on the defender?

[BktBallRef]

You're attempting to apply rules that don't apply to this situation. This isn't a rebound. This isn't guarding. This is a player attempting a shot. The player with the ball gains his position without contacting any other player illegally.

The original post? If the defender doesn't jump within his vertical plane, then it's a foul on the defender.

4-23-3c
After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

The rule does not exclude an airborne defender. If he moves, leaps, jumps, runs toward the offensive player and creates illegal contact, he has fouled. Why do you think defenders are coached to never leave their feet?

If the defender stays within his vertical plane, the foul would be on the shooter.

4-45 -1 through 5
Verticality applies to a legal position. Following are the basic components of the principle of verticality:
Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal.
From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his/her vertical plane.
The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his/her vertical plane while on the floor or in the air.
The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically or having his/her hands and arms extended within his/her vertical plane.
The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne, may not “clear out” or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane which is a foul.

From the original post, I don't believe this defender stayed within his vertical plane.

[canuckrefguy]

If the defender jumps straight up, and the shooter jumps in to initiate contact, it's a no-call or an offensive foul. No way am I bailing the shooter if the defender has the ability and presence of mind to stay vertical.

Anything else but straight up - smart play by the shooter, foul on the defender.

[Adam]

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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why do you think defenders are coached to never leave their feet?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

4-23-3c
After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

The rule does not exclude an airborne defender. If he moves, leaps, jumps, runs toward the offensive player and creates illegal contact, he has fouled. Why do you think defenders are coached to never leave their feet?

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Still disagree. The guard jumping at the shooter would not have initiated illegal contact 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.

You cited 4-37-3, which entails that a spot on the court goes to whoever gets there first (legally). In the OP, the guard is not vertical, so why is he entitled to come down where the shooter wants to go?

If the guard is not entitled to land there, then why do you have a foul on the shooter?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You cited 4-37-3, which entails that a spot on the court goes to whoever gets there first (legally). In the OP, the guard is not vertical, so why is he entitled to come down where the shooter wants to go?

If the guard is not entitled to land there, then why do you have a foul on the shooter?

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.

[mbyron]

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.

Your answer doesn't address your own rule citation: if the guard is not the first to occupy a spot on the floor legally, then he is not entitled to the spot, whether he jumps, walks, or runs there. When the guard lands on the shooter, the guard is not the first to the spot; since he was not vertical, he is not there legally.

How is this case different from a garden-variety block? Why does the jump make a difference? Are you smuggling in verticality to imply that the guard is entitled to come down on the spot?

Am I missing something?