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

This question is pertaining to the NFHS rules book.

One of the rules of the NBA clearly states that "A player is never permitted to move into the path of an opponent after the opponent has jumped into the air." But all I can find in the NFHS Rules Book is that "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." This rule only pertains to the defensive player under rule 4-23, Art 4b and Art 5d. So can a ball holder try to draw a shooting foul by moving into the path of an opponent when that opponent does not jump directly towards the ball holder but instead jumps towards the side of the ball holder? In the NBA, this would be an offensive foul.

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.

Look under screening.

Ok. So what part of the screening rule would the ball handler break? Failure to stay stationary, failure to stay withing vertical plane or failure to allow opponent time and distance?

You tell me. Describe in detail the play you are picturing. The answer should be obvious.

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.

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.

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.

And that would be illegal screening?

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.

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.

LOL! Let me know the next time you make that call. :D

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Well usually if a defender jumps where he'll clearly land short, and the offensive player jumps into the defender, the contact is marginal. And when this happens usually the offense player contorts himself and puts up an off-balance shot and taken himself out of the play, and the defender is not disadvantaged at all. The defense has done his job in forcing up a bad shot.

Now have I seen this call and offensive foul? Sure, I've seen it called in the NBA where you're more likely to see this type of play occur. Heck I remember there being a big discussion about a similar play that occurred in the 2008 NBA Finals when Paul Pierce was called for an offensive foul for side stepping and initiating contact with a defender that had jump clear and to the side of him.

Maybe it was a given in your head, but not in this thread.

:rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

BBR was clearly talking about the OP.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

In that case, I'm calling the block as the defender is moving toward the shooter.

But, if B1 jumps clearly to the side, as they should, to avoid contact and the shooter steps the side into the defender, I'm not likely to call a defensive foul.

So where do we draw the line on this? The players are 2 feet apart. B1 jumps and would have landed 2 inches closer, but before he could land A1 jumps into his chest and throws up a shot. Is this foul still on the defense?

I am not a referee, but according to the rules, that should be a defensive block.

Wouldn't it be easier if the NFHS and NCAA would have just listed clearly what a player can and can't do?

I disagree. I'm not calling that foul. I can't tell the difference between two inches and vertical. I'm not allowing A1 to jump out of his way and get the foul call.
Just like on a breakaway when A1, with B1 trailing and going airborne, jumps sideways to create contact. No call.

So if the defender bites a the pump fake and jumps only 6 inches toward the shooter, and then the shooter jumps 3 feet toward the defender, the foul is still on the defender?

Yes. The defender did not maintain legal guarding position. This is not a judgement I've ever even *thought* of trying to make nor, IMO, should I.

If A1 is stationary and approached by B1, and B1's movement itself clearly would not have caused any contact, then A1 launches himself at B1, this is not even a legal guarding position issue.

Exactly, you are not an official, so what you have to say is not based on standard practice. And there is a little rule called verticality that applies as well. Also we do not have a measuring device out there either to judge if someone was an inch or two one way or another. So if the defender is vertical and the offensive player jumps into the defender, I am not calling a foul on defender. And that is not what the NCAA or the NF wants if you look at their information they put out to describe those plays. Also a ball handler cannot clear out anyone regardless of LGP or even their verticality.

Peace