The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 05:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 07:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 07:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wasilla Ak
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 07:43pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 07:44pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
BBR was clearly talking about the OP.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 07:49pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
BBR was clearly talking about the OP.
Actually, he quoted my post, in which I specified that the shooter was stationary.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 10:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKOFL View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 11:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Actually, he quoted my post, in which I specified that the shooter was stationary.
You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 11:20pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 25, 2011, 11:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.

Quote:
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?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith

Last edited by BktBallRef; Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 12:29am.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 26, 2011, 12:34am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post


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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 26, 2011, 12:48am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
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?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 26, 2011, 01:21am
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.


Last edited by APG; Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 08:23pm.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 26, 2011, 09:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith

Last edited by BktBallRef; Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 09:04am.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 26, 2011, 10:31am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
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?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Screen on defensive player SAK Basketball 3 Fri Jun 26, 2009 06:35pm
Ball hit offensive player mdntranger Softball 3 Tue May 13, 2008 06:54pm
Throw In - Defensive Player Interferance JDog Basketball 11 Wed Nov 09, 2005 07:50am
Blocker laying on defensive player jrfath Football 3 Fri Sep 23, 2005 09:12pm
Defensive player under the offensive basket. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Basketball 0 Fri Mar 15, 2002 06:19pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1