Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 800012)

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800027)

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 800047)

If the defender is moving towards the shooter at the time of contact (even if the defender is airborne), that defender does not have LGP.

The only time I'm going offensive is if the defender would have clearly gone to the side of A1 yet A1 side stepped in an unnatural manner relative to the shot solely for the purpose of making contact. Such a play is bush league at best and doesn't deserve a defensive foul. The shooter had a clear look at the basket and chose to give it up for the contact....creating their own disadvantage.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800036)

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 800050)

BBR was clearly talking about the OP.

Originally Posted by AKOFL (Post 800048)

I agree. some say no call. do you have a issue with a no call in this sit? just curious.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800051)

Actually, he quoted my post, in which I specified that the shooter was stationary.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 799874)

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.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 800071)

You wrote:



So NO, you did reference the OP AND you stated that the shooter did NOT remain stationary.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800072)

He was stationary until the defender was airborne, then he jumped into the defender before the defender could land.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 800076)

My rule book says "The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs." It says nothing about an airborne defender being exempt from this rule.

What does yours say?

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 800076)

So if the defender was running and the ball handler was running and that collide, the foul is on the defender. But if they both jump, the foul is on the player with the ball.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800081)

But if the defender jumps, then the offensive player jumps into him, that foul is on the defender? That makes sense to you?

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800079)

Mine says

4-40-5: When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact.......

10-6-10: The dribbler is not permitted additional rights in executing a jump try for goal.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800081)

But if the defender jumps, then the offensive player jumps into him, that foul is on the defender? That makes sense to you?

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 800136)

Nobody is being screened here.

Nobody is given the additional rights to the dribbler.

The dribbler is allowed to move. If the defender moves toward him and inistiates contact, it's a foul on the defender. That's clearly referenced in my previous reply.



Yes it does.

The rule clearly says the defender can't move toward the opponent.

The shooter can jump into the defender if he doesn't have LGP and/or he doesn't have a position on the floor that he legally obtained.

You have nothing to support your "airborne defender" theory. You're taking rules that don't apply and trying to spin them. It's a baseless argument. I'm done with it.