Offensive Player Initiates Contact on Jump Shot

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Provided that the ball carrier gets to the spot first and legally, why not? Airborne shooters have specific protections in the rules. Show me the section on "airborne blockers."

Actually, there is something on that - 4-23-5: "When guarding an opponent without the ball, if the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." So it is very similar language to the airborne shooter. Picture A1 going airborne coming in for a rebound, then B1 slides underneath while A1 is in the air, causing contact.

In the OP's question though, we are talking about an opponent with the ball. In that case, 4-23-3(a) says, "After the initial LGP is obtained, the guard may have one or both feet on the court, or be airbourne, provided he/she has inbound status." In (c), it states the guard may move laterally or obliquely, provided it is not towards the opponent when contact occurs. So, if the fake caused the defender to jump towards the shooter, the defender will be more responsible for the contact, even if there's a chance the defender could have landed without contact if the shooter stayed still.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Actually, there is something on that - 4-23-5: "When guarding an opponent without the ball, if the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." So it is very similar language to the airborne shooter. Picture A1 going airborne coming in for a rebound, then B1 slides underneath while A1 is in the air, causing contact.

In the OP's question though, we are talking about an opponent with the ball. In that case, 4-23-3(a) says, "After the initial LGP is obtained, the guard may have one or both feet on the court, or be airbourne, provided he/she has inbound status." In (c), it states the guard may move laterally or obliquely, provided it is not towards the opponent when contact occurs. So, if the fake caused the defender to jump towards the shooter, the defender will be more responsible for the contact, even if there's a chance the defender could have landed without contact if the shooter stayed still.

Nice, but that is all about guarding. But as we all know, the offensive player is not guarding the defender.

That said, I don't call a defensive foul if the defender jumps in a direction not towards the shooter and the shooter goes out of the way to make contact. If the shooter's path was already in that direction, then it may or may not be a foul....it may be that the defender had lost LGP and had to jump sideways in an attempt to get back into the path of the offensive player.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice, but that is all about guarding. But as we all know, the offensive player is not guarding the defender.

I understand that, but it does give some principles we can follow given the situation isn't specifically covered under the rules. Actually, the question was whether the defender has a right to be airborne and allowed a place to land - that's the point I was addressing.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That said, I don't call a defensive foul if the defender jumps in a direction not towards the shooter and the shooter goes out of the way to make contact. If the shooter's path was already in that direction, then it may or may not be a foul....it may be that the defender had lost LGP and had to jump sideways in an attempt to get back into the path of the offensive player.

We agree.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice, but that is all about guarding.

Speaking of guarding.....and we did discuss it earlier in the Tourney, I thought the refs in the UConn game last night did a much better job on the closely guarded counts. I saw few "outstretched arms" or no counts when they should have been counting.

I now return you to your previous discussion......