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

[BktBallRef]

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.

There's nothing in the OP that says the defender jumps within his vertical plane. The OP said "...opponent does not jump directly towards the ball holder but instead jumps towards the side of the ball holder." That is not verticaltiy.

Posters can bull$hit us all they want to but nobody is calling this an offensive foul.

[Camron Rust]

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 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.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[just another ref]

Hypothetically, this call can go either way. Realistically, it is a rare thing that the defender can jump straight at a shooter, significantly contest the shot, and land short of contact, but it can happen. Coaches and officials alike urge defenders to stay down. But, nothing is absolute. The defender can bite on the fake, not be perfectly vertical, contact the shooter, and still not be guilty of the foul if the shooter jumps into him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

BBR was clearly talking about the OP.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

BBR was clearly talking about the OP.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

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

A no-call could be fine depending on the magnitude of the contact.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

You wrote:

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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You wrote:



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

He was stationary until the defender was airborne, then he jumped into the defender before the defender could land. That is why the foul, if one is called, can only be on the offensive player.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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.

That is why the foul, if one is called, can only be on the offensive player.

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. Further, say what you want, the rule says "not toward" the opponent. If he doesn't jump toward the opponent but move laterally or obliquely, he doesn't make contact.



What does your rule book say?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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?

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

If a defender jumps towards the offensive player, then yes, the onus is on the defender. The defender wants to be legal, then jump straight up and down...then when the offensive player jumps into him, he doesn't have to worry.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

The key phrase is "initiates contact".

The two players are 2 feet apart. A1 head fakes. B1 jumps to block the shot. His jump would have caused him to land 1 foot closer. But A1 now jumps into B1 as he releases the shot. Who initiated the contact?