Boston College

[Zoochy]

I was watching the ESPN highlights. At the end of regulation, J. Dudly gets the defender to jump in the air, then he jumps into the defender. Official calls a foul on the defender. J. Dudly makes the 3 free throws and the game goes into OT.
Why do we keep on rewarding the offensive player??? The offensive player did not allow the defensive player the opportunity to land safely. Offensive player caused the contact. He moved under the defensive player once he became airborne.
I guess I would just pass on the foul. Any comments??

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

I was watching the ESPN highlights. At the end of regulation, J. Dudly gets the defender to jump in the air, then he jumps into the defender. Official calls a foul on the defender. J. Dudly makes the 3 free throws and the game goes into OT.
Why do we keep on rewarding the offensive player??? The offensive player did not allow the defensive player the opportunity to land safely. Offensive player caused the contact. He moved under the defensive player once he became airborne.
I guess I would just pass on the foul. Any comments??

Need to see the play first...gotta a link?

[JRutledge]

I am going to have to disagree with you. The defender already leaped at the shooter. I will agree that the shooter "helped" the contact along, but the defender had committed and was not in LGP. I guess you could make an argument on some level of who caused the contact, but the defender does not have much of a leg to stand on (no pun intended) in this case.

Peace

[RushmoreRef]

I like this question....no doubt that O could have avoided the contact but in this case the D didn't have a legal position to begin with and was moving taking away the verticality aspect....What would be more interesting would have been O moving into D when he went straight up.....in that case it nothing or a PCF.....

[Big2Cat]

He never said the defender leapt at the offensive player. All he said was that he got him in the air. Sounds like a classic case of verticality. If the defender jumped straight up in his plane, then he is entitled. You don't lose LGP because you leave your feet.

If the defender jumps up in his plane and the offensive player leaps into him, the foul should be on the offensive player. However, if the defender leaps AT the offensive player then we have a different story.

The basic factors of the principle of verticality are

Legal guarding position must be established and maintained. Movement thereafter must be legal.
From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his vertical plane.
The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his vertical plane while the defender is on the floor or in the air.
The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically or having his hands and arms extended within the vertical plane.
The offensive player, whether on the floor or airborne, may not "clear out" or cause contact which is a foul within the defender's vertical plane.
The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Big2Cat

He never said the defender leapt at the offensive player. All he said was that he got him in the air. Sounds like a classic case of verticality. If the defender jumped straight up in his plane, then he is entitled. You don't lose LGP because you leave your feet.
...

The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules. [/I]

He never said where the defender lept. Sounds like a classic case of not enough info or HTBT.

[Drizzle]

I saw the play, and usually I agree with the OP, I don't like when the offensive player jumps sideways in order to make contact with the leaping defender. However, in this case the defender leaped towards the ballhandler and although the offensive player leaned a bit into him, it was fairly straight up and down and was a legitimate foul.