Can an offensive player move into the path of an airbourn defensive player?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

LOL! Let me know the next time you make that call.

We see plays all the time where the offensive player pump fakes, the defender jumps, the shooter then takes a legal step, jumps into the defender....TWEET! It's a defensive foul every time.

Then it's wrong every time.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

LOL! Let me know the next time you make that call.

We see plays all the time where the offensive player pump fakes, the defender jumps, the shooter then takes a legal step, jumps into the defender....TWEET! It's a defensive foul every time.

BBR:

Please elaborate on your play because I do not think I see the play the same way you do.

B1 has obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA & FIBA) a LGP against and just short of contact with A1. A1 fakes going ups for a jump shot and causes B1to jump straight up within his Cylinder of Verticality (CV). Whie B1 is in the air, A1 steps forward with his non-pivot foot causing B1 to land on him when he returns to the floor within his CV. This should be called a PCF.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Unless you were being facitous (I hope I spelled facitous correctly, ROFLMAO)!

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BBR:

Please elaborate on your play because I do not think I see the play the same way you do.

B1 has obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA & FIBA) a LGP against and just short of contact with A1. A1 fakes going ups for a jump shot and causes B1to jump straight up within his Cylinder of Verticality (CV). Whie B1 is in the air, A1 steps forward with his non-pivot foot causing B1 to land on him when he returns to the floor within his CV. This should be called a PCF.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Unless you were being facitous (I hope I spelled facitous correctly, ROFLMAO)!

That's not the play he's envisioning...he's talking about the situation where the defender jumps forward and the shooter jumps into the defender. If the offensive player doesn't do anything overt, that's a defensive foul 9.5/10 times.

Now the play that the OP envisioned is a play where the defender challenges a shot by jumping clear of the offensive player, where there would be no contact except for the fact that the offensive player makes an overt move to the side causing contact. That's a no call or a PC/offensive foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That's not the play he's envisioning...he's talking about the situation where the defender jumps forward and the shooter jumps into the defender. If the offensive player doesn't do anything overt, that's a defensive foul 9.5/10 times.

Now the play that the OP envisioned is a play where the defender challenges a shot by jumping clear of the offensive player, where there would be no contact except for the fact that the offensive player makes an overt move to the side causing contact. That's a no call or a PC/offensive foul.

Basically, you are saying the shooter gets ALL the benefit of the doubt, and all the pressure is on the defender to avoid contact, even if created by the shooter, unless the shooter does something "overt".

I find this disturbing.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Basically, you are saying the shooter gets ALL the benefit of the doubt, and all the pressure is on the defender to avoid contact, even if created by the shooter, unless the shooter does something "overt".

I find this disturbing.

Why?

We already place an onus on the defense. If a defender and offensive player are moving towards each other, the onus is on the defender. If the defender doesn't want to be called for a foul, do a better job of closing out under control and jump straight up and down...stay closer to your man and don't fall for a pump fake. If you want to run out and challenge a shot and go past the defender, make sure you go at a path that's clear of the shooter.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That's not the play he's envisioning...he's talking about the situation where the defender jumps forward and the shooter jumps into the defender. If the offensive player doesn't do anything overt, that's a defensive foul 9.5/10 times.

Now the play that the OP envisioned is a play where the defender challenges a shot by jumping clear of the offensive player, where there would be no contact except for the fact that the offensive player makes an overt move to the side causing contact. That's a no call or a PC/offensive foul.

I would agree with this. it is how you see it called all the time. I dont think it gives the offensive player all the benefit. I can see questioning who do we call a foul on when both players are not straight up and down. Judgment call? i would say more often than not the defender gets that foul. I am with apg

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Why?

We already place an onus on the defense if a defender and offensive player are moving towards each other, the onus is on the defender. If the defender doesn't want to be called for a foul, do a better job of closing out under control and jump straight up and down...stay closer to your man and don't fall for a pump fake. If you want to run out and challenge a shot and go past the defender, make sure you go at a path that's clear of the shooter.

But, according to you and BBR, even if the path is clear of the shooter, the foul is still on the defense, so long as the movement of the shooter is not overt.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We see plays all the time where the offensive player pump fakes, the defender jumps, the shooter then takes a legal step, jumps into the defender....TWEET! It's a defensive foul every time.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That's not the play he's envisioning...he's talking about the situation where the defender jumps forward and the shooter jumps into the defender. If the offensive player doesn't do anything overt, that's a defensive foul 9.5/10 times.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But, according to you and BBR, even if the path is clear of the shooter, the foul is still on the defense, so long as the movement of the shooter is not overt.

Read it more carefully. He's talking about a play where the defender jumps forward, towards the shooter.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Read it more carefully. He's talking about a play where the defender jumps forward, towards the shooter.

Even if the defender does jump forward, toward a stationary shooter, if the defender would have landed short of contact, the shooter is not allowed to jump into the defender. In reality, the shooter will get a lot of benefit of the doubt. One cannot always say with certainty who would have landed where.
But here, it was a given, the defender would have landed without contact, the shooter jumped into the defender and some have said the foul is still on the defender.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Even if the defender does jump forward, toward a stationary shooter, if the defender would have landed short of contact, the shooter is not allowed to jump into the defender. In reality, the shooter will get a lot of benefit of the doubt. One cannot always say with certainty who would have landed where.
But here, it was a given, the defender would have landed without contact, the shooter jumped into the defender and some have said the foul is still on the defender.

If a defender is jumping toward a defender and would have clearly landed short, then a case for a no call could be made. I have seen that particular play called like that and have done so myself. This is a play/discussion that would be easier if we had a clip to view. The shooter in this case is going to get the benefit of the doubt because the defender doesn't have LGP. That doesn't mean the offensive player has carte blanche to do whatever they please though.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

If a defender is jumping toward a defender and would have clearly landed short, then a case for a no call could be made. I have seen that particular play called like that and have done so myself. This is a play/discussion that would be easier if we had a clip to view. The shooter in this case is going to get the benefit of the doubt because the defender doesn't have LGP. That doesn't mean the offensive player has carte blanche to do whatever they please though.

the thread just went over my head with carte blanche. I have never seen an offencive foul called on this type of play. should there be??? maybe. when it is obvious that the offencive player initiates contact it is a no call usually. is that right by rule? prob not. not how ive seen it called though. i have no prob with a no call though.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

the thread just went over my head with carte blanche. I have never seen an offencive foul called on this type of play. should there be??? maybe. when it is obvious that the offencive player initiates contact it is a no call usually. is that right by rule? prob not. not how ive seen it called though. i have no prob with a no call though.

Was the defensive player put at a disadvantage by the contact? More often, probably not.

[APG]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

the thread just went over my head with carte blanche. I have never seen an offencive foul called on this type of play. should there be??? maybe. when it is obvious that the offencive player initiates contact it is a no call usually. is that right by rule? prob not. not how ive seen it called though. i have no prob with a no call though.

Well usually if a defender jumps where he'll clearly land short, and the offensive player jumps into the defender, the contact is marginal. And when this happens usually the offense player contorts himself and puts up an off-balance shot and taken himself out of the play, and the defender is not disadvantaged at all. The defense has done his job in forcing up a bad shot.

Now have I seen this call and offensive foul? Sure, I've seen it called in the NBA where you're more likely to see this type of play occur. Heck I remember there being a big discussion about a similar play that occurred in the 2008 NBA Finals when Paul Pierce was called for an offensive foul for side stepping and initiating contact with a defender that had jump clear and to the side of him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But here, it was a given, the defender would have landed without contact, the shooter jumped into the defender and some have said the foul is still on the defender.

Maybe it was a given in your head, but not in this thread.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Maybe it was a given in your head, but not in this thread.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I was picturing the offensive player as stationary, based on the reference in the OP to a "ball holder" as opposed to a ball handler. (dribbler) In such case when the defender jumps in an attempt to contest the shot and would have landed cleanly had the offensive player remained stationary, the call could only go one way.