Up and Under Move

[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...

[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?

[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 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?

[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.

[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)