Up and Under Move

[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.

[iref4him]

If the defender has established legal guarding position, he has the right to move and maintian a legal guarding position. If he jumps he has the floor to the ceiling. It doesn't matter if he is aggressive so long he has not put the offensive player at a disadvantage. If the offensive player makes the contact, foul is on the offensive player.

Additionally, if the defender jumped up in his vertical plane and if the offensive player intentionally undercuts the defender, it would not be a player control foul, but an intentional foul.

If the defender had no legal guarding position, then the foul is against the defender.

BUT....in most situations, a majority high school officials are not referee-ing the defense (RTD). The eyes are mostly focused on the offensive and his/her movements. By the time they see the play, a majority of the high school officials will call it on the defender.

The better college officials will call it a no-call or an player control foul.

I have worked many games and seen many officials who do not get this call right. Getting the right angle and RTD will be the best factor in making this call correct.

But this is a judgment play -- did the defense have the legal guarding position or not???

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by iref4him

If the defender has established legal guarding position, he has the right to move and maintian a legal guarding position. If he jumps he has the floor to the ceiling. It doesn't matter if he is aggressive so long he has not put the offensive player at a disadvantage. If the offensive player makes the contact, foul is on the offensive player.

Additionally, if the defender jumped up in his vertical plane and if the offensive player intentionally undercuts the defender, it would not be a player control foul, but an intentional foul.

If the defender had no legal guarding position, then the foul is against the defender.

BUT....in most situations, a majority high school officials are not referee-ing the defense (RTD). The eyes are mostly focused on the offensive and his/her movements. By the time they see the play, a majority of the high school officials will call it on the defender.

The better college officials will call it a no-call or an player control foul.

I have worked many games and seen many officials who do not get this call right. Getting the right angle and RTD will be the best factor in making this call correct.

But this is a judgment play -- did the defense have the legal guarding position or not???

However if the defender does not jump in his vertical plane, he has lost LGP.