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.

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.

Re: Re: eroe, there is no requirement that a defender
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: eroe, there is no requirement that a defender
 

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.

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!

Chuck, I would suggest you re-read the paragraph.
 

Unless you're kidding!

Re: Re: Re: Re: eroe, there is no requirement that a defender
 

"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?

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

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

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.

easy one
 

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!

"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.

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 <b>offensive opponent.</b>
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.

Re: eroe, there is no requirement that a defender
 

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"...

Re: Re: eroe, there is no requirement that a defender
 

Thank you!!

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 <b>offensive opponent.</b>
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.

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Does the same principle apply? I'm not so sure it does.

Consider this play: A1 is driving from the top of the key...straight down the lane. B4 rotates from the corner to help. B4, anticipating a shot, jumps while running towards the lane. A1 continues down the lane and pulls up for a 3 foot jumper about the time that B4 lands on him.

By the analogy you made: <em>"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."</em>

the foul would be on the shooter for moving under the defender after the defender jumped. I assert that this foul should be on the defender.

What would this mean if your analogy were true? If the two players are on convergent paths, the first (perhaps only) one off the ground could not foul. Example: If I, as a defender, saw an opponent driving, I could cut towards a point along his intended path, jump towards it before he got there and before he jumped, crash onto the dribbler/shooter and draw a foul on the him.

Of course this is not the case. This foul is on the defender. Therefore, a defender does NOT always get a guaranteed place to land even if path was clear when they jumped. The fouls the defender can draw while jumping must conform to the requirements of legal guarding position and/or verticality. The clauses granting a landing spot specifically talk about the offensive player. If it were to apply to both, it would not single out the offensive player in both locations.

(I've only consider body contact fouls...a shove by a hand can always be a foul regardless of who jumps when or where).


[Edited by Camron Rust on Jun 13th, 2003 at 05:54 PM]

After Reviewing The Play As It Was Explained...................
 

The defender has leapt high and slighty foward, towards the shooter. It never said any where that the defender had established "legal guarding position." This sounds like the move that Walt "Clyde" Frazier had mastered. We are taught to referee the defense and by doing so on this play, the defense caused the contact. Soley because, once the shooter goes up he/she is allowed space to return down to the floor. The "fake" is what played this defender! Now if this was Reggie Miller who likes to kick that foot out to initiate the contact on his jumpshot, we can reward the defense.

Re: After Reviewing The Play As It Was Explained...................
 

"Now if this was Reggie Miller who likes to kick that foot out to initiate the contact on his jumpshot, we can reward the defense."

Have you EVER seen Reggie called for a PC foul when
doing this?

Hey Joe...........
 

What I have saw was Reggie look for the foul call on this famous shot of his, and not get it!

Camron, you're now the third person to make this same point. Maybe the third time's the charm?

Re: Hey Joe...........
 

Wow! He didn't get it *once*!!!

Has anyone *ever* seen him called for tripping
the defender? Seriously, he would get 15 yards
for this in the NFL.

FWIW, I agree with you re. convergent paths, however,
the play I visualized in the original post was a
stationary, or near stationary shooter who "fakes"
his shot, causing the defender to jump, then jumps or
lunges into or under the defender. Usually "faking"
a shot requires two hands on the ball (MJ and Dr. J
aside) so I assume the shooter already picked up his dribble.

Exactly!
A1 has the ball and pump-fakes. B1,who is loosely defending A1,jumps forward with the fake,but if A1 doesn't move,B1 will return to the floor without making any kind of contact.However A1,after B1 has jumped,now takes a dribble forward and goes up for a jumper.B1 runs into A1 now.There is nowayinhell that the foul is on B1 in this case.That's the play that JeffRef basically described.Even if B1 jumped sideways,A1 still can't move under him after B1 has jumped.

Gotta go watch Clemens whine again now.He's one dickhead that shoulda stayed a BoSox!:D

You guys are talking about 2 different things here.

1- The original post would seem to be a paly where the shooter has both feet planted on the floor, pump fakes, gets the defender into the air, and jumps into him.

2- The latter play has the shooter "driving" to the basket.

Does the same rule application apply to both scenarios? Personally, I haven't been able to find anything that the defender is entitled to a spot on the floor to land after becoming airborne. The only application I find is for the shooter/thrower. But I did find this. "If he/she (the defender) jumps into position, both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he/she has obtained a guarding position." So, even if the defender had LGP before jumping, if he jumps toward the offensive player, doesn't he have to re-establish his LGP. by returning to the floor with both feet?

And yes, I have seen Reggie Miller called for an offensive foul in the situation described, both for kicking the defender and for jumping into him.

PS - After writing this, I looked back at some of the posts and I believe Camron and I have written almost the same thing.

I'm with Cam and Chuckie.

That's correct, Jurassic
 

There are a number of other references that make the point. I'll dig them out when I get a chance. The matter of a dribbler is somewhat more complicated, subject to some special rules, although, certainly, once guarding position has been obtained, the defender can jump to stay in front of the dribbler and need not have even one foot on the floor to have the 'right to land'. In all other cases, a player cannot move INTO somebody's landing spot - the player can sure as hell stay in place and, if the official is seeing far enough ahead of the action, get the call. The example I gave of what happens on an inbounds pass going from the baseline out beyond the arc is very common.

As for 'stealing the tap', I have taken to
 

outright flummery. I alter my rhythm - it would be illegal were I a foul shooter - to try to catch the jumpers off guard. They're dedicated to stealing it, and I'm dedicated to getting off a fair jump. What a way to start the game!

some evidence . . .
 

CASEBOOK 10.6.1 Situation A asks: "Is it correct to say that guarding takes place only when an opponent is playing against a player who has the ball?" The answer is no, and that exactly the same principles apply to situations without the ball as to those with . . .

Even more specifically, CASEBOOK 10.6.1 Situation B says: B1 takes a certain spot on the floor before A1 jumps from the floor to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 comes to the floor on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1.

Taken together, these two Casebook examples make the point. The principle that 'a player is entitled to land on a spot that was unoccupied when s/he took off' is inherent in the first example and is commonly illustrated in the literature referencing the airborne shooter. In the second example, the foul is on A1 because A1 came down on the floor before the contact happened. Otherwise, the foul would have, indeed, been on B1.

I have to weigh in with Chuck and company. Jefftheref, the more you p[ost, the more you dri9ft from the facts at hand. In the two cases you cite, the principle is that B has a position on THE FLOOR and A is in the air, and in both cases A gets the foul. Neither establishes an inherent right to land anywhere that was open when you left the ground. The second case only points out that your right to land as an offensive player (A!) ends when your foot touches the floor and you have no right to further space in that same line that you jumped.

As many others have pointed out, airborne shooters have a right to land in space that was vacant when they jumped. No rule yet cited extends this right to the defense, and a jumping defender does not have legal guarding position. Defenders do own the right to their vertical plane, so defenders can jump staight up and draw an offensive foul by rule if the player steps into their landing area. The book is silent on the defender that jumps toward a spot that an offensive player occupies while the defender is airborne. But the book is clear that defenders don't have legal guarding position until they return to the floor, so it seems that they do not have a right to land in any unoccupied space. Rules for offense and defense clearly differ in this situation.

It seems that most refs, and this coach, think that the defender can be charged with the foul once they leave their vertical plane while jumping, with the obvious caveat that you have to see it to call it.

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jun 14th, 2003 at 09:20 AM]

Would someone, ANYONE, please reference the rule that says a defender is entitled to a "right to land" on a space if it was unoccupied before he left the floor.

If a defender is running at a player with the ball, doesn't he if to stop prior to making contact and establish position? Why is it any different if he's running, and then jumps? Answer: It isn't. The only rule, that I can find, that protects and airborne player applies to a shooter or a thrower. It says absolutely nothing about a player without the ball having a "right to land." Now, if you know where such a reference can be found, please post it. Because damned if I can find it.

It is an induction. It doesn't
 

apply to the situation of guarding a dribbler, which is special case. It is implicit in the rules and casebook examples bearing on the rights of players - importantly, both offensive and defensive players - in the context of physical contact.

I think you're over-thinking it. One guy leaps to get the ball, straight up or at an angle, it doesn't matter. A player on the other team runs under him, moves to occupy the spot the leaping player would have landed on, a spot that was unoccupied at the moment he took off. The 'rules' can't expect a player to change direction in mid-air and they don't.

If a defender is running at a player with the ball, doesn't he if to stop prior to making contact and establish position? Why is it any different if he's running, and then jumps? Answer: [/B][/QUOTE]In your case,the defender is running AT the player.In Jeff's case,the defender ISN'T running at the player.After the defender left his feet,in Jeff's case,he wouldn't have made contact with the opponent IF the opponent hadn't jumped in front of the defender AFTER the defender had left his feet.

Apples and oranges!

My personal opinion is that the call most often AND most egregiously missed, especially at the hs varsity level, is the little travel to set up for the 3-point shot. It happens at least three to six times per game at a certain level and is almost never called. Talk about an advantage gained!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee In your case,the defender is running AT the player.In Jeff's case,the defender ISN'T running at the player.After the defender left his feet,in Jeff's case,he wouldn't have made contact with the opponent IF the opponent hadn't jumped in front of the defender AFTER the defender had left his feet.

Why does it matter whether he's running or not? If he doesn't legally obtain the spot on the floor first, it's still blocking. The rule I quote yesterday states, "If he/she (the defender) jumps into position, both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he/she has obtained a guarding position." That's very clear. Whether he's running or not has nothing to do with it.

Once again, please reference the rule that states a player without the ball has a "right to land."

"And yes, I have seen Reggie Miller called for an offensive foul in the situation described, both for kicking the defender and for jumping into him."

Which just goes to prove the point: after getting away
with these moves 1000's of times he started to get
called once in a great while (many of us have yet to see
him called for offensive fouls in these situations). Indeed,
several years back an official (I forget who) was asked about Miller's tricks and he chuckled: "We know what he's up to, but he gets us sometimes." Good players are as adept at faking out officials as they are the opposition. Bird and Jordan were among the most subtle: hands kept low and close to the hips when pushing off for shots or rebounds.
It's part of the game.

I don't know about all that. You asked if anyone had ever seen him called for a foul and I have, several times when he would kick his leg out on jumpers.

JR
I am surprised you see this as apples and oranges. Having left the floor, a defender is not entitled to air space or ground space other than that in her vertical plane. If I ball fake with the intent of going left, the defender cannot prevent my going left by leaping into my potential path.

I have always taught that if you jump laterally to a defensive position, you have to land to be in position. I think this holds true in all cases.

Coach,if your defensive player jumps laterally in front of an offensive player,and-AFTER your player is in the air-the offensive player now jumps forward INTO your player,is the foul on your player? Or are you going to be screaming for a PC foul? NOTE that your your player would NOT have made contact if the offensive player hadn't jumped into her!

Okay, help me out here,Jurassic or JefftheRef. Please provide the rule reference that states a an airborne player who does not/has not had the ball has a "right to land." You guys keep saying this but I can't it in the book. Where is it in the rule book? Not being argumentative but I don't see where the rules justify your point.

It's Rule 4-23-5d (from the 1999-2000 book)

Rule 4-23 (excertps) GUARDING

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an <b>offensive opponent</b>.


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.

ART 5 ...Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

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.

Tony
Art 5 clearly applies to a player without the ball. It might be able to apply to the defense, though ntohing specifically says it does.

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

Block/Charge
 

First and foremost I want to thank you for and interesting discussion in this thread. It has caused me think and re-think my position on this issue. There are some principles I have found that may apply to the discussion.

4-23-1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent...
4-23-2 To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the floor.
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.
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.
c. The guard may raise hands or jump WITHIN his/her vertical plane.

There is more to the rule, and a little I have left out but I do not think that it applies to the situation. One other situation I want to cite is 10-6-2. It talks about contact between a dribbler and a defender, but what I think is interesting is the last line: "The dribbler should not be permitted additional rights in executing a jump try for goal, pivoting, feinting or starting a dribble."

So, with all of this quoted, what is the point? If the ref feels the defender has legal guarding position and the defender jumps, still facing the offensive player, and while the defender is still the the air, the offensive player moves into the path of the defender, I think the responsibility for contact goes to the offensive player. As a ref, I can see visualize a jump where legal guarding position is maintained and where it is lost (that's why we get paid - to judge the situation)! I interpret 4-23 as saying a defender can leave his/her feet, moving, and still maintain legal guarding position. The operative word is "can". It is not automatic in every case. If the defender reaches or kicks while in the air and contact is made, then I am inclined to call the foul on the defender. If the defender is not reaching and the offensive player has initiated the contact, I will lean toward a player control foul or a no-call - depending on the amount of contact or situation of the game.

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.

HawksCoach: Nothing to do with this thread, but are you guys playing in the 21/22 Jun AAU tournament in northern VA?

Re: Block/Charge
 

How can a guard maintain a LGP when he jumps and leaves his vertical plane? If he does, we can throw everything out the window with regards to verticality and LGP.

You're guys are over extending the rules of a guarding position and verticality. The rule book says nothing about the shooter leaving the floor after the defender. If the defender blocks the offensive player's path and is not in a legal position, HE HAS BLOCKED.

"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? :D

"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 <VBG> 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?

Re: Block/Charge
 

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).

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

within his/her vertical plane.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

>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?

Re: Re: Block/Charge
 

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. :confused: You're calling what you want to call, not what the rules support.

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?

With respect to dribbler, legal guarding position
 

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.

And it happens . . .+
 

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.

Re: With respect to dribbler, legal guarding position
 

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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? :confused:

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

Re: And it happens . . .+
 

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.

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?

BsktBallRef: Because the rule is a logical inference
 

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?

Re: BsktBallRef: Because the rule is a logical inference
 

It's a no call.

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.

Re: BsktBallRef: Because the rule is a logical inference
 

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.

Quote:

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.

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

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? :confused:

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.

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.

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...

More comments
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: More comments
 

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

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.

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. :(

Jurassic, thank God for you.
 

"I really can't see the difference. In the sitch that started this thread,the defender <b> 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.<b>"

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 <U> in at least the circumstances I have described in ealier posts, <U> 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.]

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.

Re: Re: BsktBallRef: Because the rule is a logical inference
 

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...

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".
( [/B][/QUOTE]Tony,I still think that what we have here may be a failure to communicate.:D

I may be doing a poor job of trying to detail how I envision this play,but I think that,during a game,we would probably make the same call.That's jmo,too.

Interesting discussion,though.Lot of good points made by different posters,too.

Re: More comments
 

As a former basketball official, I found this discussion very interesting. I think what is quoted above supports Tony's position. Just my two cents on this.

Just to really stir this up, what if we consider screening principles?

The offense may not cut off the path of a moving defender without giving time/distance.


I think it really boils down not to who jumped or who jumped first but the specifics of each case. Where was each player to start with? Which direction did they jump? Was the shooter's jump a "normal" offensive action.


I had another post that didn't seem to make it....retrying...


The difference, I think is whether B's jump is "obtaining" a postition or "maintaining" a position. If B has remained in front of A the entire time (no head/shoulders by), then it is certainly possible that B's lateral jump is with the constraints of LGP. However, it is also possible that the jump was because A1 beat B1 and B1 need to re-obtain a LGP.

That, I believe, is the crux of this situation.

There also exists casebook plays wherein the defense draws a PC foul even though the defender was not in LGP.

Re: Re: More comments
 

At the end of the day, this is a jugment call. If the official was not refereeing the defense, he might not be completely aware of what happen and might only be guessing as to what the defender did. So all of us can quote all the rules, citations and wording, but the play might not be exactly as stated. If you have little or no judgment, it does not matter what the rulebook says if you are not refereeing the defense and watching solely the ball handler.

Peace

Mike,if the guard moves laterally or obliquely,but happens to be in the air when the shooter now initiates the contact with him/her,who are you gonna call the foul on? The guard?

I doubt I get back into calling basketball but this is what I envisioned in the original play.

A1 fakes a shot from the corner baseline. B1 bites on the fake and jumps out and towards A1. A1 takes a step in toward B1 and tries a jumpshot, B1 crashes into A1.

Foul on B1 in my opinion.

In your play, it's a tough call. Without answering your question :D , let me ask one (I honestly am swaying both ways with this one).

A1 takes a shot. B1 is somewhat out of position to get the rebound and jumps from the side of the basket to the middle of the basket. While B1 is airborn, A1 moves to the spot where B1 is going to land to pull down the rebound. B1 lands on A1. Who fouled?

Good question and good discussion.

I'd call the foul on A1.If A1 isn't in B1's path when B1 jumps for the rebound,I honestly can't think of any way that B1 should be responsible for any contact that might occur before he lands.It's just not reasonable to expect a player to have to change directions in mid-air when there wasn't anyone in front of them when they initially jumped.This is another play similar to the one that Joe was expounding on previously.The principle of a "legal guarding position" doesn't really have anything to do with this play.It's more about who is initiating the illegal contact.

Btw,I thought that Camron made some excellent points above,also.

I would add ...
 

If A1 is already in a path and B1 jumps to block the path but does not come down before the A1 gets to the point, foul on B1. However, if B1 jumps to a point, and A1 alters his path or initiates a new path to get to B1's landing point before B1 lands, I have a foul on A1. To say anything different would make it legal to undercut anyone at any time.

Re: I would add ...
 

JR:

"The principle of a "legal guarding position" doesn't really have anything to do with this play.It's more about who is *initiating* the illegal contact."

Yes!

RiPA:

"However, if B1 jumps to a point, and A1 alters his path or initiates a new path to get to B1's landing point before B1 lands, I have a foul on A1. **To say anything different would make it legal to undercut anyone at any time.**"

YES!!! That's the point! Defenders could never jump
anywhere outside their "vertical plane" without the
offense having license to undercut them. Can you
imagine a game where the defense had to always stop before
jumping to insure they were jumping inside their vertical
plane? It's absurd.

So in the long run, we can learn this lesson from all of this discussion - you had better see the entire play! If you are turning your head late to pick it up, you have no idea who jumped where, so see the whole play...