The Call Most Often, or Most Egregiously, Missed

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by theboys
One of the most common calls I see missed is the jump stop that's really a jump skip. Player pitter-patters instead of landing on both feet simultaneously.

I agree that it's called incorrectly most of the time, but that's b/c of how we see it called at higher levels. IMHO, the jump stop should be illegal, anyway. It's clearly an "up and down" and should be a travel. Catch (possession), land on one foot, jump (up), land on two feet (and down). I realize it's legal b/c the pivot foot doesn't get established by landing on one foot. I think they should change the rule to eliminate the jump stop.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Jeff, this is just false. I don't know who taught you this principle, but it's wrong. The defender is not allowed to jump into the path of an airborne shooter, even if the defender jumped first.

If the defender jumps and is in the path of the airborne shooter, then the defender has to be "straight up", or within his vertical plane.

You can't just jump in someone's way, have a collision and say, "Well, I jumped first". You need to re-think the paragraph you wrote above.

I think that you guys are still arguing apples/oranges. Unless I'm mistaken,Jeff is talking about a defender jumping first,BEFORE the shooter becomes airbone,and Chuck is talking about a defender jumping AFTER the shooter is airborne.Jeff may be a little vague in his terminology,but that's how I read his post.The principle of who gets charged with the foul is the same in both cases,though.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that you guys are still arguing apples/oranges. Unless I'm mistaken,Jeff is talking about a defender jumping first,BEFORE the shooter becomes airbone,and Chuck is talking about a defender jumping AFTER the shooter is airborne.

JR, my point is that I don't care who jumps first. It's irrelevant. Jeff's post sounds to me like he's saying if the defender jumped first then the defender can't be responsible for the contact. But that's just false. Who jumped first has nothing to do with who gets charged with the foul. If the defender jumps into the path of the shooter, whether the defender jumped first or not, the foul is charged to the defender, unless the defender has jumped within his/her vertical plane.

[theboys]

Hey, Chuck.

I agree with your sentiment about the jump stop. Generally, the move is used to break through an otherwise pretty well-positioned zone defense.

Gosh, Chuck, you're good at his. Moderating two discussions at once!

[JeffTheRef]

Unless you're kidding!

[Joe]

"If the defender jumps into the path of the shooter"

I still think you are talking apples and oranges. There
was a good example that I posted a ways back. Van Exel,
Western Conference Finals, is *standing* a foot behind
the 3 point arc. He up fakes a shot, Jackson jumps at an
angle to a spot three feet inside of the arc. *After*
Jackson jumps Van Exel lunges across the arc, dips his
shoulder into Jackson's hip, throws up a "shot" which
misses by 15 feet.

A) Jackson is called for the foul
B) Van Exel is given three free throws even though
one foot was three feet inside the arc.
(BTW, it was a one point game)

I guess the question is: can the shooter jump or
lunge into the path of the airborne defender with
whom he would otherwise NOT make contact with?

My other question to NBA or WNBA officials was: is this
reviewable? I know they can go back and change a three to
a two, but how about the number of foul shots?

Originally posted by ChuckElias

JR, my point is that I don't care who jumps first. It's irrelevant. Jeff's post sounds to me like he's saying if the defender jumped first then the defender can't be responsible for the contact. But that's just false. Who jumped first has nothing to do with who gets charged with the foul. If the defender jumps into the path of the shooter, whether the defender jumped first or not, the foul is charged to the defender, unless the defender has jumped within his/her vertical plane.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
Nominate your favorite. Federation rules . . .

Mine is: Shooter upfakes (good! it's about time someone learned how to play) and gets defender into the air. The Defender has leapt high and slightly forward, towards the shooter. The shooter then moves towards the defender, insuring s/he will be crashed in to.

This _always_ goes against the defender, and it shouldn't. You have the right to come down on any spot on the floor that was unoccupied when you took off. The defense is always getting the short end of the stick . . .

Touching the ball before it reaches it's highest point on the jump ball.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
Chuck, I would suggest you re-read the paragraph. Unless you're kidding!

Ok, I re-read it. I'm sorry, but it's still wrong. What do you think I've missed? Jumping first has absolutely nothing to do with who is responsible for the contact. Can you show any rule that would support your statement to that effect?

And I'll say it again, although it may not be directly on point. If a player jumps, s/he is not entitled to land on any spot that was unoccupied when he/she jumped. You're only entitled to an unoccupied spot if you can get there without making contact with an opponent who has a legal position on the floor.

As far as Nick van Exel's situation goes, I do not reward an offensive player who unnaturally extends his/her body in order to initiate contact with a defender. Around here, we call that "bailing out" the shooter.

Chuck

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Touching the ball before it reaches it's highest point on the jump ball.

Great one, Mike. During these NBA Finals, I remember thinking to myself that I can't remember the last time I saw a legal tip in the NBA.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

By a wide margin, the call most often made incorrectly is the kicking violation. There must be intent! If the defender's foot is planted on the floor and a bad pass is fired off of it, you can be sure that there isn't intent, and you can almost be certain that a whistle will blow anyway!

[Joe]

"As far as Nick van Exel's situation goes, I do not reward an offensive player who unnaturally extends his/her body in order to initiate contact with a defender. Around here, we call that "bailing out" the shooter."

Good, but they DO bail out the shooter on a consistent
basis in the NBA, and to a lesser extent (the shooters
aren't that tricky yet), in the NCAA.

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, I re-read it. I'm sorry, but it's still wrong. What do you think I've missed? Jumping first has absolutely nothing to do with who is responsible for the contact. Can you show any rule that would support your statement to that effect?

And I'll say it again, although it may not be directly on point. If a player jumps, s/he is not entitled to land on any spot that was unoccupied when he/she jumped. You're only entitled to an unoccupied spot if you can get there without making contact with an opponent who has a legal position on the floor.

As far as Nick van Exel's situation goes, I do not reward an offensive player who unnaturally extends his/her body in order to initiate contact with a defender. Around here, we call that "bailing out" the shooter.

Chuck

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, I re-read it. I'm sorry, but it's still wrong. What do you think I've missed? Jumping first has absolutely nothing to do with who is responsible for the contact. Can you show any rule that would support your statement to that effect?

And I'll say it again, although it may not be directly on point. If a player jumps, s/he is not entitled to land on any spot that was unoccupied when he/she jumped. You're only entitled to an unoccupied spot if you can get there without making contact with an opponent who has a legal position on the floor.

As far as Nick van Exel's situation goes, I do not reward an offensive player who unnaturally extends his/her body in order to initiate contact with a defender. Around here, we call that "bailing out" the shooter.

Chuck

I partially agree with Chuck.

The only place it talks about players with regards to position and jumping is:

Rule 4-23. GUARDING
Art. 1...Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
Art. 4...Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.


So, the "having a place to land" is mentioned only in guarding an offensive opponent. The defender isn't given the right of a place to land by this rule.

The other rule that comes into play is legal guarding position. If the defender, having obtained an initial legal guarding position, has jumped laterally or obliquely away from the shooter (not towards the shooter) and the contact is in the front of the defender's torso, this is still legal guarding position. Remember that no feet have to be on the floor to remain in LGP. Only the direction of movement matters. This should be a PC foul.

If that jump is towards the shooter in any way, block.

In 99.9% of these cases, the jump will obliquely towards the shooter (aiming to pass by the shooter's side). Contact will usually be a block. However, if the shooter has to go out of a natural path for the shot just for the purpose of creating contact, I'll not reward him with a foul against the defender. I might even call the PC foul.

[PublicBJ]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
If the defender jumps first, s/he has the right to come down on any spot that was unoccupied at the moment of takeoff. This doesn't have to involve a player in control. A great example is an inbounds pass from the baseline out beyond the 3 point line. It's not unusual for the offense player to leap forward for the ball and for a defender to move into the landing spot.

Using this theory, if I'm a defender I can avoid a block foul by stopping an offensive player that's burning me by "jumping" in his way. If my feet were on the ground and I clip him, it's a block. If I go airborne in a jump (aiming for a currently empty space in front of the offensive player), then it should be a foul on the offense.

Sorry, that doesn't "fly"...

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by PublicBJ
Using this theory, if I'm a defender I can avoid a block foul by stopping an offensive player that's burning me by "jumping" in his way.

Thank you!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]

The only place it talks about players with regards to position and jumping is:

Rule 4-23. GUARDING
Art. 1...Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
Art. 4...Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.
[/B][/QUOTE]NFHS rule 10-6-3NOTE states the general principle to be used:-"The guard may not cause contact by moving under OR IN FRONT OF a passer or thrower after he or she is in the air with both feet off the floor. The key phrase is "in front of ....."! The same principle applies to a shooter or passer,also.They similarly can't cause contact by moving under or IN FRONT OF a defensive player after he or she is in the air with both feet off the floor.

That's what JeffRef is trying to say,I think.If it is,I agree with him,and this language backs him up.