The Call Most Often, or Most Egregiously, Missed

[Joe]

"From what I read, a airborne defender who contacts an offensive player outside of his vertical plane is blocking."

Again, using the Reggie Miller kick out move example
(because everyone has seen it a 100 times):
the defender IS outside his vertical plane and moving
towards Miller, but a foot or more off to his side. If Miller doesn't "kick out" there wouldn't be any contact. Are you saying even though Miller kicks (or lunges or jumps
or shoulder slams or whatever into the defender) this is a foul on the defender because:

A) he doesn't have LGP

and

B) he is outside of his vertical plane?

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Camron, this addresses the player with ball being airborne. I'm fully aware of those rules. What I wopuld like address is the "right to land" by an airborne defender.

From what I read, a airborne defender who contacts an offensive player outside of his vertical plane is blocking.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Joe
"From what I read, a airborne defender who contacts an offensive player outside of his vertical plane is blocking."

Again, using the Reggie Miller kick out move example
(because everyone has seen it a 100 times):
the defender IS outside his vertical plane and moving
towards Miller, but a foot or more off to his side. If Miller doesn't "kick out" there wouldn't be any contact. Are you saying even though Miller kicks (or lunges or jumps
or shoulder slams or whatever into the defender) this is a foul on the defender because:

A) he doesn't have LGP

and

B) he is outside of his vertical plane?

I'm not talking about a player who kicks his leg out. I'm talking about the original post, where I player fakes, gets the defender airborne and then jumps and shoots.

Joe, get Reggie Miller off your brain, would ya?

[Joe]

"I'm talking about the original post, where I player fakes, gets the defender airborne and then jumps and shoots."

"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."

Although the wording *may* confuse some I read the original post to say the shooter moves into and/or under the defender AFTER the defender jumped. IOW, if the shooter had stayed inside *his* vertical plane there would be no contact. I read this as a nearly stationary shooter prior
to the defender's jump.

>I'm not talking about a player who kicks his leg out.

Does it matter what body part (;-/) the shooter uses to draw contact?

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I'm not talking about a player who kicks his leg out. I'm talking about the original post, where I player fakes, gets the defender airborne and then jumps and shoots.

Joe, get Reggie Miller off your brain, would ya?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ref in PA

I am not going to get hung up on whether the defender has a right to come down on a spot or not, I want to determine if legal guarding position is maintained and who is responsible for the contact.

Thats the point that I have been trying to make-"who is responsible for the contact?" If an offensive player jumps INTO a defensive player,and is the CAUSE of the contact,then the offensive player should be charged with the foul(if you're gonna call one-a lot of times you might just no-call the contact).

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Joe
Although the wording *may* confuse some I read the original post to say the shooter moves into and/or under the defender AFTER the defender jumped. IOW, if the shooter had stayed inside *his* vertical plane there would be no contact. I read this as a nearly stationary shooter prior to the defender's jump.

The offensive player isn't required to stay within his vertical plane, but the defender is. And if he doesn't, he is no longer in a legal guarding position. Read 4-44

Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle of verticality are:
ART. 1 Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal.
ART. 2 From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his/her vertical plane.

Wow! What a statement! As long as the defender stays within his vertical plane, he's legal. What a concept! but you'rer saying he's legal if he goes outside his vertical plane. Do you have a rule that backs this up? No one else has been able to provide one.

ART. 3 The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his/her vertical plane while on the floor or in the air.
ART. 4 The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically or having his/her hands and arms extended within his/her vertical plane.

Once again, the defender's movements are legal if he stays

within his/her vertical plane.

ART. 5 The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne, may not "clear out" or cause contact within the defender' s vertical plane which is a foul.

Once again, it's a foul on the offense if he violates the defender's vertical plane, not if he jumps where the defender is also jumping.

>I'm not talking about a player who kicks his leg out.

Does it matter what body part (;-/) the shooter uses to draw contact?

Certainly it does. See 4-23-1.

A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

I've provided rule references to back up my statements. Can you?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Thats the point that I have been trying to make-"who is responsible for the contact?" If an offensive player jumps INTO a defensive player,and is the CAUSE of the contact,then the offensive player should be charged with the foul(if you're gonna call one-a lot of times you might just no-call the contact).

What rule states that whoever causes the contact is responsible for the foul?

If that's the case, then what's the call. A1 drives to the basket. B1 has his arms extended horizontally, outside his vertical plane. A1 throws up a scoop shot and hits B1's arms, which are illegally extended. A1 causes the contact because B1 is standing still. Is the foul on A1?

You guys keep arguing these points, but as yet, not one of you has offered any rule references to support your stand. You're calling what you want to call, not what the rules support.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

But it does not apply to the guard being airborne and his "right to land," that JR and Jeff claim exists.

Tony,let's try this one.I think that it's the same concept that I'm trying to explain.

You have 2 opponents side-by-side running down the floor.The offensive player could also be the dribbler,but it doesn't really matter.Both opponents have established straight-line paths,and these paths are definitely non-convergent.Neither opponent has got their head and shoulders ahead of the other player.One of the opponents(again it doesn't matter which one)alters their path so that they now make contact with their opponent.Note that a "guarding position" is not a factor,and never was.If you're going to call the foul for the contact,do you call it on the player who initiated the contact,or do you call it on the other player?

[JeffTheRef]

must be obtained. Time and distance are not relevant. All you have to do is get two feet on the floor facing the dribbler in the path. Then, indeed, if you maintain that position in front of the dribbler and contact is caused by the dribbler in the area from shoulder to shoulder, it is a player control foul. The defender need not have any feet on the floor . . .

With respect to a MOVING situation away from the ball, time and distance are the issue. Sure, don't have the right to land in front of a moving player if he doesn't have a CHANCE to change direction - and that may be as much as 2 steps.

All that being said, the example I started with, and a number of others, are expressive of an interesting, implied rule - a meta rule. All axiomatic systems have to have such things. In this case it is the 'right to land'. I'm sorry I was hasty and didn't restrict the conditions explicitly to begin with.

Think about two stationary players. One leaps forward. Can another run and get to the putative landing spot first 'legally'? No. A practical instance of this are things like a player leaping forward to catch an inbounds pass and a defender, stationary at the time the leap is made, running under the player. And it happens often, and is very hard to see correctly, in rebounding situations.

[JeffTheRef]

when a defender leaps forward to block a shot and the shooter, stationary at the time the defender leapt, moves into a spot on the floor that was unoccupied at the time the defender jumped, not allowing the defender a spot to come down on.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
must be obtained. Time and distance are not relevant. All you have to do is get two feet on the floor facing the dribbler in the path. Then, indeed, if you maintain that position in front of the dribbler and contact is caused by the dribbler in the area from shoulder to shoulder, it is a player control foul. The defender need not have any feet on the floor . . .

Absolutely true, IF the defender stays within his vertical plane. Buit throughout this discussion, we've talked about a defender who is not within his vertical plane. In such a case, the defender is blocking.

With respect to a MOVING situation away from the ball, time and distance are the issue. Sure, don't have the right to land in front of a moving player if he doesn't have a CHANCE to change direction - and that may be as much as 2 steps.

All that being said, the example I started with, and a number of others, are expressive of an interesting, implied rule - a meta rule. All axiomatic systems have to have such things. In this case it is the 'right to land'. I'm sorry I was hasty and didn't restrict the conditions explicitly to begin with.

But everytime someone has expressed an "implied rule," I've given an actual rule reference to dispute it. An "implied rule" is nothing more than something one makes up to support his point. That's no one has met my challenge to provide a rule reference that says a defender is entitled to a "right to land." The right doesn't exist.

Think about two stationary players. One leaps forward. Can another run and get to the putative landing spot first 'legally'? No.

Why not? Please provide the rule that backs this up. Unless the player who jumps is a passer, shooter, or a player catching a pass, there's no rule that states you can't move to that spot before he lands. If there is, show it to me.

A practical instance of this are things like a player leaping forward to catch an inbounds pass and a defender, stationary at the time the leap is made, running under the player. And it happens often, and is very hard to see correctly, in rebounding situations.

What?

You're applying principles that are not supported by rule or case play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
when a defender leaps forward to block a shot and the shooter, stationary at the time the defender leapt, moves into a spot on the floor that was unoccupied at the time the defender jumped, not allowing the defender a spot to come down on.

I've said it over and over. The "right to land" does not exist for a defender. And I've asked, over and over. If this is true, supply the rule reference.

But you won't, because you can't.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Tony,let's try this one.I think that it's the same concept that I'm trying to explain.

You have 2 opponents side-by-side running down the floor.The offensive player could also be the dribbler,but it doesn't really matter.Both opponents have established straight-line paths,and these paths are definitely non-convergent.Neither opponent has got their head and shoulders ahead of the other player.One of the opponents(again it doesn't matter which one)alters their path so that they now make contact with their opponent.Note that a "guarding position" is not a factor,and never was.If you're going to call the foul for the contact,do you call it on the player who initiated the contact,or do you call it on the other player?

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing who gains the position legally. And I still maintain that the guard is not entitled to the space just because he went airborne first, if the offender got to the spot first. Again, supply a rule to back up your position. I've asked over and over but I'm getting nothing. Show me the rule and convince me.

Why won't anyone cite a rule to back up their point?

[JeffTheRef]

from a number of other explicit rules. There are multiple ways to construct the case - all take some time and the the appplication of reason. I'll try to get to it.

In the meantime, any but the most simple axiomatic system will have rules that are not explicit. Are you telling me that if there are two players standing facing each other 6 feet apart and the ball is thrown between them and one leaps first, forward, to catch the ball, the other can run to the spot where the leaper will land, which was unoccupied at the moment he took off, and the foul is on the player in the air?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
Are you telling me that if there are two players standing facing each other 6 feet apart and the ball is thrown between them and one leaps first, forward, to catch the ball, the other can run to the spot where the leaper will land, which was unoccupied at the moment he took off, and the foul is on the player in the air?

It's a no call.

[theboys]

This thread is a shining example of why I don't yell at referees much anymore. I suspect the refs who are regulars at this site are some of the best refs around, yet we've spent five pages and several days debating a single play in a game.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Ref in PA, its been very educational. But, it just shows me how much more judgment comes into play in making calls than I ever imagined. Where I used to scream about the "rule of verticality", now I just shake my head and bury it in my hands.