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 . . .

Maybe, but you can't cause illegal contact to get to that spot.

What am I missing here,Chuck?:confused:If the shooter wasn't in the "unoccupied" space when the defender left his feet,it's not illegal contact on the defender if the shooter then moves into that space after the defender left his feet,is it?How can the defender cause illegal contact in this particular case that JeffRef spelled out? Doesn't the same principle that governs the airborne shooter call(gotta be there before the shooter leaves his feet)also govern the shooter's actions?

"The defense is always getting the short end of the stick . . ."

Yup. Nick the quick got this call on several occasions
in recent NBA playoffs, and Reggie Miller has drawn this
call 100's, maybe 1000's of times. The worst variation
is when he kicks out at the defender (well outside Reggie's vertical plane) and still gets the call even though he
clearly intitiated contact.

And that's in the NBA rule book too - the book specifically states that in this case, the foul is to be charged to the offense - yet it nearly always goes against the defense. I've seen it called correctly ONCE.

The call most often missed is the T on the coach for general principles. I make it a point to go over this in pre-game.

The second most missed call is not calling the automatic foul on a defender if a shooter is putting up a shot in the last second of a tie game. :p

Sorry, I wasn't specifically commenting on the case that Jeff gave. I was simply saying that although you have the right to land in the unoccupied space behind B1, you can't go through B1 to get to it. The fact that the spot is unoccupied doesn't mean a good defender can't keep you from getting there. That's all.

Don't forget the lane violations for looking over the 3pt line during the lane-cleared ft's.

If the defender jumps straight up and straight down and the offensive player jumps into his vertical space I believe it should be a no call or offensive foul depending on the severity of the contact. However, 98% of the time when a defender is contesting a jump shot, he jumps forward towards the ball. And when he does this prematurely, such as reacting to a good ball fake, and the offensive player now draws the contact I believe a defensive foul should be called since the defender is now illegal, i.e.- not jumping within his vertical plane. This is my philosophy on jump shot plays, now I believe it is totally different on drives to the basket. Many times the center will jump straight up and straight down on these plays simply to protect the basket.

eroe, there is no requirement that a defender
 

only jump 'within' his vertical plane'. Good defense would take a mighty hit were that the case. 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.

ELI!!! Welcome Back!! Where you been lately? Fill us all in and the latest, and whether you'll be doing WNBA this year. Not that I'll get to see you, since we don't have a team anymore, but might we catch you on TV?

I was simply saying that although you have the right to land in the unoccupied space behind B1, you can't go through B1 to get to it. The fact that the spot is unoccupied doesn't mean a good defender can't keep you from getting there. That's all. [/B][/QUOTE]Just verbiage,Chuck. I read this that "having the right to land" means that no one was in your path when you left your feet,and therefore if you have to then go through B1,then B1 is responsible for the contact because he moved into your path AFTER you left your feet.If B1 was in your path before you left your feet,then you NEVER had the "right to land".In other words,this is the difference between a block and a charge.If you change B1 to A1,the same block/charge principles should still apply-as JeffRef was pointing out.

My pet peeve is officials waving off the shot after a foul is committed and not allowing the "continuation".
I have seen countless examples over the past year of a shooter having begun his "motion" and then the official waving the shot off "on the floor!"
Aaaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
One game example....
The shooter drove to the basket, picked up the ball in his "motion", was hit, took one step, and layed the ball up. Tweet! "On the floor!"
Says my partner. So during a break, I mentioned the play to him (big mistake, this guy was not up for suggestions)
during a timeout.
I said that I thought the shot should have counted because the shooter should have been allowed to continue his shooting motion.

The guy says, "well, he was fouled as he was bringing the ball up."

Aaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!!!! He even doomed himself by his own explanation!

Anyway, that's my pet peeve. :D

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.

Re: eroe, there is no requirement that a defender
 

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.