| Jurassic Referee |
Fri Mar 25, 2011 07:31pm |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
(Post 743873)
1) Being airborne doesn't magically give you the right to land if that spot is also in the path of another player who has the right to that spot.
2) What if, in the process of defending a shot, the defender was airborne while the shooter is still on the floor? What if the shooter then moves into the airborne defender's path in the process of taking the shot? Offensive foul for moving into the spot of an airborne player since the airborne player has a right to land?
3) If you are suggesting that an airborne player must always be allowed to land, then no defender who gets pumped faked into the air can ever commit foul when the shooter ducks under them.
4) As I said before, we have two conflicting rules.... guarding rules vs. screening rules ....with opposing requirements. Each rule requires that the guard/screener allow the other player certain rights and those rights conflict. We have to decide if the defender was guarding or the offensive player was screening.
5) In this play, the net effect was a screen.
|
1) What rule gives any opponent the right to a spot under an airborne player when that opponent did not have that spot when the player went airborne?
2) Yup, I think a player should be allowed to land if there was no one in his path when he went airborne.
3) Yup. A shooter can't legally jump into an opponent. And if a defender jumps within his vertical plane, a shooter can't move under him legally either.
4) Yup, it's a judgment call imo too.
5) But was the net effect an illegal screen? That's where the judgment lies.
As I said, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, Camron. |
