Offensive Player Initiates Contact on Jump Shot

[tlynch]

It is becoming a common play for and offensive player to get a defensive player in the air with a shot fake, and once the defensive player is in the air, the offensive player initiates contact while attempting a shot, and a foul is called on the defensive player.

Obviously if the defensive player is vertical, then there is no foul.

In the circumstance where the offensive player is stationary, fakes a shot, and the defensive player jumps toward the offensive player, but the defensive players path in the air would avoid contact, and let him land to the side of the offensive player, shouldn't the the defensive player have the right to continue his path and land?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tlynch

In the circumstance where the offensive player is stationary, fakes a shot, and the defensive player jumps toward the offensive player, but the defensive players path in the air would avoid contact, and let him land to the side of the offensive player, shouldn't the the defensive player have the right to continue his path and land?

Why? The rule says he's entitled to his spot on the floor, not his flight plan.

[tlynch]

If an offensive and defensive player are running parallel to each other down the floor on a fast break, and the offensive player lowers his shoulder and pushes the defensive player off of his path - who is the foul on?

Lets take an extreme example, a defensive player has a running start and jumps from the foul line to block a shot of offensive player A1. Player A2, who was stationary when B1 left the floor, sees B1 in the air and steps into his flight path in the middle of the key and gets hit. Is that a foul on B1?

Anytime a defensive player leaves the floor and is not vertical an offensive player can simply step in his way and if there is contact it is a foul on the defensive player?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tlynch

Anytime a defensive player leaves the floor and is not vertical an offensive player can simply step in his way and if there is contact it is a foul on the defensive player?

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."

[just another ref]

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."

The player is allowed to come down, regardless of the reason he was airborne.
If the defender jumps in an attempt to block the shot, and has a line which would pass the shooter without contact, then the shooter jumps into this line, thus creating the contact, it is a PC foul.

[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.

[tlynch]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The player is allowed to come down, regardless of the reason he was airborne.
If the defender jumps in an attempt to block the shot, and has a line which would pass the shooter without contact, then the shooter jumps into this line, thus creating the contact, it is a PC foul.

Thanks, this is what I was trying to get at.

I think that lately there have been many calls in which the shooter has been getting an unfair advantage (Kobe Bryant) and it is spilling over into rec. league games where shooters shot fake and then jumps under the defender while he is in the air, and are getting the call.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tlynch

Thanks, this is what I was trying to get at.

I think that lately there have been many calls in which the shooter has been getting an unfair advantage (Kobe Bryant) and it is spilling over into rec. league games where shooters shot fake and then jumps under the defender while he is in the air, and are getting the call.

I assume you're the defender in these cases?

There could be two possibilities - first, is the defender jumping toward the offensive player? Or, are they jumping straight up or obliquely with the shooter? If the answer to the first question is yes, then the defender is more responsible for the contact, even if they jumped first.

The other possibility is you are seeing it in rec leagues, where there are probably less-experienced officials. They could be so focused on the shooter that they do not see where the defender started, or what direction they were jumping, and only see the end result of the contact with the shooter. This type of vision does often improve with experience.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I assume you're the defender in these cases?

There could be two possibilities - first, is the defender jumping toward the offensive player? Or, are they jumping straight up or obliquely with the shooter? If the answer to the first question is yes, then the defender is more responsible for the contact, even if they jumped first.

The other possibility is you are seeing it in rec leagues, where there are probably less-experienced officials. They could be so focused on the shooter that they do not see where the defender started, or what direction they were jumping, and only see the end result of the contact with the shooter. This type of vision does often improve with experience.

And sometimes not, as evidenced by the foul called in the last minute of St. Mary's - SDSU last night. Post player pump faked the defender, the defender remained in his vertical plane, the offensive player initiated the contact, scored and went to the line for 1. It happens especially when you lose focus for an instant. I've had plays where I realized I was not officiating the defense and was not sure who was responsible for contact. I try to say the defenders' #'s in my primary as I am officiating to stay focused on officiating the defense.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by tlynch

It is becoming a common play for and offensive player to get a defensive player in the air with a shot fake, and once the defensive player is in the air, the offensive player initiates contact while attempting a shot, and a foul is called on the defensive player.

Obviously if the defensive player is vertical, then there is no foul.

In the circumstance where the offensive player is stationary, fakes a shot, and the defensive player jumps toward the offensive player, but the defensive players path in the air would avoid contact, and let him land to the side of the offensive player, shouldn't the the defensive player have the right to continue his path and land?

This exact play happen last night in the UConn/Purdue game and they had a no call.

[tlynch]

It actually happened twice in the first half of that game, once it was called a foul, the other time it was not.

I was going to go back and try to watch both instances on replay, but I did not have the energy.

[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......