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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MiamiWadeCounty

The play I am picturing is a defender who has jump toward the same direction of but not directly toward the ball handler in an attempt to contest the shot. The ball handler jumps toward and moves into the landing path of the defender and makes contact.

I would say that the ball handler fails to stay stationary and does not allow the defender one to two normal steps or strides. I am correct?

I agree with your analysis...in general.

Yet, if you view it from the point of the defender guarding the offensive player, it could just as well be considered a defensive block. You have to decide which player has the right to be moving into that spot when both are doing so. In the case of a dribbler/shooter, the opponent is usually guarding and not doing so legally.

If such actions were legal, all defenders could anticipate the path of a dribbler and jump across it such that there is a collision and get an offensive foul.

What you have to consider is whether the offensive player deliberately moved into the defender's path solely for the purpose of creating contact. If it is such that the shooter was going that way anyway, it is probably a defensive foul. If they go out of their true intended path to make contact, it is probably not a defensive foul....it may or may not be an offensive foul depending on the amount of contact.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with your analysis...in general.

Yet, if you view it from the point of the defender guarding the offensive player, it could just as well be considered a defensive block. You have to decide which player has the right to be moving into that spot when both are doing so. In the case of a dribbler/shooter, the opponent is usually guarding and not doing so legally.

If such actions were legal, all defenders could anticipate the path of a dribbler and jump across it such that there is a collision and get an offensive foul.

What you have to consider is whether the offensive player deliberately moved into the defender's path solely for the purpose of creating contact. If it is such that the shooter was going that way anyway, it is probably a defensive foul. If they go out of their true intended path to make contact, it is probably not a defensive foul....it may or may not be an offensive foul depending on the amount of contact.

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

Agree.

[MiamiWadeCounty]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

And that would be illegal screening?

[BktBallRef]

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.

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.