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

just another ref

Camron Rust wrote
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

just another ref wrote
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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Just like the NBA, this would be a no call or an offensive foul. It's never legal to move into the path of an airborne player...it makes no difference if it's an offensive or defensive player.

Where in the rules book can I find it? The NBA has that rule written clearly; A player is never permitted to move into the path of an opponent after the opponent has jumped into the air. But the NFSH has it written in a riddle.

MiamiWadeCounty

just another ref wrote
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?

APG

MiamiWadeCounty wrote
Where in the rules book can I find it? The NBA has that rule written clearly; A player is never permitted to move into the path of an opponent after the opponent has jumped into the air. But the NFSH has it written in a riddle.

It doesn't explicitly state it like the NBA rule but like the others have said, use the screening principles. The screener did not give the defensive player the proper time and distance to a moving player.

MiamiWadeCounty

AllPurposeGamer wrote
It doesn't explicitly state it like the NBA rule but like the others have said, use the screening principles. The screener did not give the defensive player the proper time and distance to a moving player.

I understand.

just another ref

MiamiWadeCounty wrote
Where in the rules book can I find it?

10-6-11: A player shall adhere to the rules pertaining to illegal contact, including but not limited to, guarding as in 4-23, rebounding as in 4-37, screening as in 4-40, and verticality as in 4-45.

BktBallRef

just another ref wrote
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

BktBallRef wrote
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.

BktBallRef wrote
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

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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

just another ref wrote
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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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.

BktBallRef wrote
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.

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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

just another ref wrote
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

Snaqwells wrote
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

just another ref wrote
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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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.:p 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

AKOFL wrote
the thread just went over my head with carte blanche.:p 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.