Up and Under Move
 

A real good fade-away up-fake gets an overly agressive defender to jump up and out at the faking shooter. Defender is now airborne, beyond vertical. The offensive player pulls down the ball, pivots on his left foot as he steps towards the basket with his right foot. The pivot and step takes the offensive player underneath the airborne defender such that the defender lands on the shooter. Shooter was not at vertical, either, at time of contact: his step under took him past vertical.

Offense obviously trying to draw a foul. Defense obviously over-agressive, 'flying' at shooter. Both players were out of their "cylinder' of verticality at time of contact. Defender ends up on floor, claming he was undercut. Offense claims that, no, it was he that was fouled: a classic up and under move. (ask Kevin McHale...)

What's the best call here? There sure was a lot of contact for a 'no call.'

Thanks!

If the shooter moved under the defender after the defender became airborne, the only possible foul that could be called would be on the shooter. You have to give any player room to land after they jump, with the caveat that the opponent wasn't in their path when they jumped.

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.

I agree, up to some point. We can judge the landing point of the defender only when, well, he/she lands. If he/she has space in front of him/her, he/she is allowed to jump, provided he/she lands without making contact with someone who has already occupied a spot (I assume that the opponent is not already moving along a free path; in this case the defender has to comply with the LGP rule). In the play under discussion, the movement of the shooter starts after the jump and goes in the path of the airborne player.

Where I don't agree is that oppoonents have to give room to the airborne player for landing. It's the airborne player's responsibility to land in a spot which was free at the moment of the jump and to comply with the LGP rule if he/she is a defender.

I would have to see the play to be sure but I would have the foul on the defender unless the offensive player tried to jump back into the defender's chest iow, trying to knock the defender out of the way while trying to draw the foul. I think we should reward the offensive player for making an athletic and smart move, while at the same time penalizing the defender for taking the headfake and leaving the floor. I know this doesn't follow the letter of the law, but I would be willing to bet if a player takes a head fake he is not jumping straight up to block the shot, but instead jumping towards the ball. I know it is a bail out to say this but this is the philosophy that is taught at the college and pro level.

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?

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? :confused:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 <b>after</b> the defender had already jumped.

You're kidding, right? :rolleyes:

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

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

So you disagree with the rule book. Okay. :rolleyes:

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

And we're still waiting on the rule cite. :)

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

No, you're not missing anything. ;)

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

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.

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.

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? :confused:

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...

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

So you're sure you're not sure? :D

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...:eek:

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? :confused:

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)

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.

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.

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.

Well, it's settled then. Only one applicable rule citation:

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.

Additionally,
Which player first committed to leaving his vertical space? Defender
Which player made a stupid play? Defender
Which player made the best basketabll play? Shooter

Reward the shooter.

If this OP is a foul on the shooter....if airborne shooter and airborne defenders share equally the right to a landing spot (...no rule citation here was supplied here, by the way), then please don't let the defenders of this world know. Because we'll have guarding players jumping up and out of vertical in front of driving shooters like a flea circus. Yikes!

So........if a dribbler elbows a defender running beside him, the foul has to be on the defender because he doesn't have LGP?

And what if the <b>shooter</b> leaves his feet first? Is it still a foul on the <b>shooter</b> if the defender moves under him?

Great logic.

Still about verticality and LGP...
 

I think this play, with all of the rules citations and everything, should still be judged by determining LGP and verticality.

Did the defender jump straight up, or out towards the shooter's fake position?

Once doing that, did the defender forfeit his/her legal gaurding position?

Did the shooter initiate contact by throwing body into the defender, or did the shooter simply slide to an unoccupied spot on the floor where the defender was jumping forward to?

Looks to me as if the defender jumped out towards the shooter, forfeiting LGP, and the shooter moved to a spot on the floor, not into the defender. Two shots.

Again, LGP does <b>not</b> have to be a factor in making this type of call.

If a player jumps forward to grab a rebound, would you call a foul on <b>him</b> if an opponent moved <b>under</b> him from the side <b>after</b> the player had left his feet? There's no LGP involved in this play, is there?

If a dribbler and a defender are running down the floor in established straight-line paths side-by-each, can the dribbler veer to the side and force the defender out of his straight-line path legally because the defender didn't have LGP?

The same concept in both case is used to make the call.