Up and Under Move

[Carl Cramer]

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!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Carl Cramer

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.'

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.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[btaylor64]

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.

[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.

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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 after the defender had already jumped.