The Call Most Often, or Most Egregiously, Missed

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by 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.

Then cite those rules and construct your case. You've yet to provide one single rule to back it up. You simply keep offering opinions with rule reference.

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?

No, and the rule covers this. The rule is very clear that a DEFENDER cannot assume a spot on the floor after a player with the ball or one who is going after the ball is airborne. However, there is no support for your stance that an offensive player with the ball cannot move to a spot after the defender is airborne. That's the whole point of the discussion. The "right to land" does not exist for the guard, the defender.

[mj]

What I don't understand is if a defender jumps "slightly forward" why do you punish the offensive player? When a defender leaves his feet and jumps "slightly forward" I do not consider that good defense.

mj

[cmathews]

I think we also need to consider the reason for the rules that allow players, with or trying to get or having just released the ball, to have a spot to come down. It is a safety issue. The player who has just released the ball, (passer or airborne shooter) or the player who is trying to get the ball, have their concentration on the ball. They need to be allowed the spot to come down safely so that they can concentrate on the task at hand. The defense doesn't have the same needs. Yes maybe this is giving the offensive player a little advantage, but hey, maybe they deserve a little for being in control of the ball.....so to support BktBallRef, not only are there no specific rules supporting the defender, there are safety issues that put the rules in place as they are. We have to remember that it is not always just fair play that initiates rules, safety is also a concern....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
I think we also need to consider the reason for the rules that allow players, with or trying to get or having just released the ball, to have a spot to come down. It is a safety issue. The player who has just released the ball, (passer or airborne shooter) or the player who is trying to get the ball, have their concentration on the ball. They need to be allowed the spot to come down safely so that they can concentrate on the task at hand. The defense doesn't have the same needs. Yes maybe this is giving the offensive player a little advantage, but hey, maybe they deserve a little for being in control of the ball.....so to support BktBallRef, not only are there no specific rules supporting the defender, there are safety issues that put the rules in place as they are. We have to remember that it is not always just fair play that initiates rules, safety is also a concern....

That doesn't make any sense at all.A defensive player CAN'T jump and be allowed to come down SAFELY,but an offensive player can? What's the difference between the 2 players,if there was no opponent in their path when either of them jumped?

[cmathews]

The difference is the defensive player is not concentrating on the ball or shooting or catching, his primary focus can be his coming to the ground. When a shooter or other offensive player is jumping they are concentrating on something other than the floor, so moving in under them can cause a serious safety risk, that isn't necessarily inherent with a defensive player, since when they are jumping they are most likely jumping towards the person who may or may not move under them, they can defend themselves and often do. How often do you see the defensive player leave the ground see that they are coming down on the offensive player and put their hands on the offensive players back or whatever to break their fall.....now how often do you see this when it is the offensive player in the air, not nearly as often, the reason, the offensive player isn't concentrating on where they are coming down...thus the protection for the offensive player.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
When a shooter or other offensive player is jumping they are concentrating on something other than the floor, so moving in under them can cause a serious safety risk, that isn't necessarily inherent with a defensive player, since when they are jumping they are most likely jumping towards the person who may or may not move under them, they can defend themselves and often do.

Can't agree.I think that it's dangerous to move under ANY airborne player,offensive,defensive or rebounding.

Note that I said "move under"! That means that you move under them AFTER they are airborne.

[cmathews]

JR, I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, I said that the rule allowing the offensive player a place to come down is safety related. I think that a dangerous type collision or situation is most likely to occur when it happens to an offensive player, the exception being two opposing players each going for the ball. The situation that originally started this thread however, was a defensive player jumping towards a player with the ball. In this case the defender will see the other player move and be able to protect themselves, the airborne player with the ball however usually won't be able to protect themselves, so the rules are put there to protect them...

[Ref in PA]

I am going to disagree with Tony on a couple of points he has made.

1. "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" No where in 4-44 does it say the defenders loses his legal guarding position by his jumping to a new spot. He does lose his rights to verticality, but not LGP. He is now a defender, moving to a new angle from which to defend his/her opponent. It may not be a good angle, but as long as the principles of LGP are kept, the position is maintained. In fact, it happens all the time. Picture a defender sliding sideways with the offensive players at a very fast pace. There will be moments when both of the defenders feet are off the floor.

For my rule, I cite 4-23-3.
"4-23-3 After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard is NOT required to have either or both feet on the floor or continue facing the opponent.
b. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs."

A defender is moving in a path (in the air), not toward the offensive player. Granted, by jumping the defender is not moving very fast, but the offensive player still runs into the defender. Is the contact the defender's responsibility?

Or consider this example. As the offensive player is driving toward the basket, the defender has established LGP in the path between the offensive player and the basket. As the offensive player nears, the defender jumps up, slightly backward, leaving the verticle plane, the offensive player does not alter course and makes contact. Who will the foul be on? If on the offense, what makes this situation different in your eyes? If you would call this on the defense, then we just plain disagree about being able to maintain LGP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
JR, I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, I said that the rule allowing the offensive player a place to come down is safety related. I think that a dangerous type collision or situation is most likely to occur when it happens to an offensive player, the exception being two opposing players each going for the ball. The situation that originally started this thread however, was a defensive player jumping towards a player with the ball. In this case the defender will see the other player move and be able to protect themselves, the airborne player with the ball however usually won't be able to protect themselves, so the rules are put there to protect them...

I really can't see the difference.In the sitch that started this thread,the defender wouldn't have made any physical contact at all,if the shooter hadn't moved into the defender's path AFTER the defender left his feet.I think that the offensive player thus initiated the contact,and should be the one who is penalized(if you're gonna call anything).I also think that it's just as dangerous to move under ANYONE after they jump,as it is for the shooter alone. JMHO.

[cmathews]

Ok, then we must maybe agree to disagree on the relative danger. To be honest there isn't a lot of difference in the danger factor. I was just offering an opinion on why the offense would be protected and the defense not. As far as the play goes, I originally agreed that it should be a PC foul, but after reading and digesting all the posts, I do think that the defense lost its LGP in the play and thus the foul, if any, should be on the defense. However as we all know, it is a play that must be seen to be judged.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
As far as the play goes, I originally agreed that it should be a PC foul, but after reading and digesting all the posts, I do think that the defense lost its LGP in the play and thus the foul, if any, should be on the defense.

What's your opinion on the play that I posted previously-the one where 2 opponents are running side-by-side down the court,both have established straight-line,non-convergent paths,and the dribbler moves sideways and contacts his opponent? There's no LGP,as per the definition,involved at any time on this play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
I am going to disagree with Tony on a couple of points he has made.

1. "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" No where in 4-44 does it say the defenders loses his legal guarding position by his jumping to a new spot. He does lose his rights to verticality, but not LGP. He is now a defender, moving to a new angle from which to defend his/her opponent. It may not be a good angle, but as long as the principles of LGP are kept, the position is maintained. In fact, it happens all the time. Picture a defender sliding sideways with the offensive players at a very fast pace. There will be moments when both of the defenders feet are off the floor.

For my rule, I cite 4-23-3.
"4-23-3 After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard is NOT required to have either or both feet on the floor or continue facing the opponent.
b. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs."

A defender is moving in a path (in the air), not toward the offensive player. Granted, by jumping the defender is not moving very fast, but the offensive player still runs into the defender. Is the contact the defender's responsibility?

Or consider this example. As the offensive player is driving toward the basket, the defender has established LGP in the path between the offensive player and the basket. As the offensive player nears, the defender jumps up, slightly backward, leaving the verticle plane, the offensive player does not alter course and makes contact. Who will the foul be on? If on the offense, what makes this situation different in your eyes? If you would call this on the defense, then we just plain disagree about being able to maintain LGP.

So, you're saying that once a guard establishes a LGP, he never gives it up?

Why is there a difference in these two plays?

A1 is dribbling to the basket and B1, who has established LGP, now...

#1...runs in front of A1.

#2...jumps in front of A1.

10-6-3 Note specifically states:

If he/she jumps into position, both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he/she has obtained a guarding position.

If what you say is true, then a defender can never again be called for a blocking foul, if at anytime during the sequence he had LGP. And that's simply not true. Defenders establish LGP all the time and still illegally move into the path of a dribbler or shooter.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I really can't see the difference.In the sitch that started this thread,the defender wouldn't have made any physical contact at all,if the shooter hadn't moved into the defender's path AFTER the defender left his feet.I think that the offensive player thus initiated the contact,and should be the one who is penalized(if you're gonna call anything).I also think that it's just as dangerous to move under ANYONE after they jump,as it is for the shooter alone. JMHO.

Woody, completely out of the norm for you, you're simply telling me what you "think" and what your opinion is. You have yet to offer any rule reference to back up what you "think".

Okay fellas, I'm done with this one. I guess we can agree to disagree. But you're ignoring established rules and priniciples, for what you "think" should be called.

[JeffTheRef]

"I really can't see the difference. In the sitch that started this thread,the defender wouldn't have made any physical contact at all,if the shooter hadn't moved into the defender's path AFTER the defender left his feet."

Exactly.

Many commentators here are delving into special cases - two opponents whose 'state' falls within the 'guarding' statutes, for example. But those are not the point. BasktBallRef, I believe, takes the position that all the possible rules of the game, either explicit (rulebook) or implied (casebook) have been brought to light. I don't think so. I think there are some very important 'rules' that either haven't been addressed in the casebook yet are absolutely a part of the way the game is played and officiated or that are of a meta-rule nature.

The 'right to land' is explicit for an airborne shooter; the defender may not move into the shooter's landing spot after the shooter has taken off. This 'rule' is made most clear in Rule 10-6-3-d-note, "The guard [a defender who has obtained legal guarding position] 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." I am saying that the principles behind this rule - safety, fairness - dictate that in at least the circumstances I have described in ealier posts, the 'right to land on a spot unoccupied at the time of takeoff' exists in how the game is played and officiated.

[By the way, BsktBallRef, I worship your backcourt quiz. I review it often. There's no way one can run the logic to produce some of those calls fast enough - it is pure recognition.]

[cmathews]

JR, if there was never any LGP established it would have to be on the defense, if at all. I would however add that, again it is a situation where you have to see it, but I do see your point. If the offensive player lowers his shoulder and initiates the contact then it is tough to punish the defense. In this situation however the defender isn't playing bad defense as in the Paratrooper defender in the original situation.

[Joe]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

It's a no call.

Here a real-life situation, same idea. Offense throws
a lob pass which is short. Defender jumps (48" vertical)
to grab the ball high out of the air, slightly forward
and *out of his vertical plane*. When he jumps there is no
one in front of him where he would land. Just before grabbing the ball (several feet off the floor) an offensive player runs under him and through his legs sending him head over heels cracking his skull on the floor. The leaper never had the ball, so he is still on "defense" and according to the quoted rules has no right to a spot on the floor since he left his *vertical plane* and clearly doesn't have LGP.

No call or foul on the defense....right?


Or...the offensive player:

A) intitiated contact

and

B) gained an advantage,

so...