That is different than the play we are looking at. The shooter in this play is not yet airborne. He moved into the path of the defender while starting the usual movement that precedes a try. Had Love been in the air with the same contact then yeah defender foul all the way. He moved into the path of the defender outside his shoulder width with his feet, creating the contact illegally according to the end of the paragraph of 4-23-1.

If the defender stays in his vertical plane, yes, if not, block.

So if A1 is dribbling the ball towards the basket and B2 comes running from the wing, jumps, and lands on A1's dribbling arm it's not a foul on B2?

I'm inclined to say just the opposite.

He is still a shooter. If Love does not even shoot and moves forward and is landed on by the jumping defender, that is still a foul on defender. So this, "He caused contact with the shooter" is frankly garbage. Now I would agree that a ball handler is not absolved from all actions like doing something intentional or flagrant, but his action was not either. He was making sure he was contacted, but nothing out of the ordinary. Better yet, I guess if a ball handler is dribbling hard to the basket and the defender is not in a LGP, you would suggest well if the ball handler was not moving forward then the contact would not have taken place? Why does that change drastically when the defender is airborne?

Here is the problem I have with your point of view in this discussion. You are only focusing on one reference. You are not considering common practice, interpretation, other rules that apply to this situation. There is a reason there is an entire definition about LGP. There are no definitions as to what a ball handler must do specifically in order to be responsible for a foul. There is an airborne shooter rule that states that an airborne shooter is in the act of shooting until they reach the floor. Nothing in that rule states an airborne shooter is responsible for any contact unless the defender is in a LGP. There is no responsibility on the ball handler to move in a specific way as the rules states about the defender. This is why we say "Referee the defense" as what they do is the reason we have a foul or not have a foul.

Peace

Yes. But the defender doesn't have LGP, nor verticality, and is airborne. It seems like some posters are stuck on that part, but in my mind, it doesn't matter in this case. It's simply a smart and effective play by the shooter. I personally don't think it's that difficult. It's as though we're discussing a Stockton-esque play where the shooter who is jumping sideways into either a stationary or vertical defender and drawing the foul. We're not. This defender does not have LGP, and has no right to land when meeting the airborne shooter is on a path that intersects with his path.

Someone recently posted a baseline drive and contact play that is completely analagous. I could think up about 20 other analogies where the same thing is happening. They're all fouls on the defender. And they'd all be called fouls on the defender, I'm betting, in-game, by officials at all levels.

..Also, "IMO" all over the place, here.

What's great about all this is, none of us no what we would call until we have it and see it at full speed.;)

Why would it not be?

Part of experience is seeing plays in all kinds of ways and knowing where the rules and standards apply. I do not need to see a play live to know how to call this play or how I would call this live or in slow motion. This is about as basic a foul on the defender as I can think of based on my experience. I call a lot of PC fouls and this would not be one of them.

Peace

Your right, and I am probably overthinking this. It would be a tough sell on the PC. However easy sell on a block.

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter. Foul on defense. Thanks jrut. I learned a lot. My original instinct was correct but now I know WHY.

No, he's not.

Read your definitions some more to see why it might matter in a different play.

According you and a fellow from Oklahoma, A1 would be responsible for moving into the path of an airborne defender, right?

I never said that, and that is a different situation than this one.

Well, an occasional poster to this forum actually worked the T-Wolves/Warriors game.

And the video I saw was at full speed.

And I know what I would call.

Does this count:

My point was that Love extended into the path of the defender illegally, which, in your scenario the ball handler was still in a legal position. I would retract that statement now after realizing that an airborne shooter is considered airborne even though they may be on the ground but are in the act of shooting. But now I am confused becuase I have no idea what the H-E double hockey sticks Bob is referring to.

The act of shooting and airborne shooter are not necessarily the same thing. Honestly I do not care what your original thought process was, I do not have to work with you. ;)

You can think whatever you like. But when very experienced and officials that work different levels (exclude me from that equation) are challenging you on your rules knowledge, then that should tell you something. You have a lot of heavy weights taking you on about this issue. You would think that would click.

Peace

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?

I am still waiting for an answer to this question.

Peace

This is what I said, and it is different than the scenario you put up. The difference is the offense jumping into the defensive player. I understand that there is a lot of experience on here and I am not saying I am right, just discussing.

I was pretty sure I was wrong, just didn't know why. I use this forum to help me learn the rules better which I think is why everyone is on here. I can't quite tell if your comment is supposed to be condescending or just an observation. I know my rules knowledge isn't like those who have been doing this for decades and can quote from memory. I truly respect those people. I am just starting my third year as an official so I know I have a long way to go. Nevertheless, thanks to everyone for helping us noobs work through scenarios. And if you were being condescending, stop it. :D

Not quite sure I understand what you are asking.

You must did not realize I was commenting on the question that BNR asked those that suggested a PC foul should be called?

Peace

A player who is on the ground cannot, by definition, be an airborne shooter. A player holding the ball cannot, by definition, be an airborne shooter (but s/he can be in the act of shooting).

A player who has released the ball on a try is no longer in the act of shooting, unless he or she is an airborne shooter.

None of the above matters (I don't think) on this particular play, but can matter on different plays. Your (apparent) misunderstanding of the two definitions (and, iirc, other definitions) could cause you to rule incorrectly.

So, my gentle suggestion would be to read the book more (and read for greater understanding) and post less (it's NOT my suggestion that you stop posting altogether).

I see the difference between act of shooting and airborne shooter. I read the book plenty. Dozens of hours every week including the off season. I only have 220 posts in 1 year. That isn't very many. What is the point of this forum if we can't ask our questions and talk through scenarios.

Here's one to discuss then:

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?



JRut was commenting on the above question.

If the question is asking whether it matters 3 feet from the basket or from the 3 point arc, I don't think so. Still a foul on the defender.

This is my 17th year and will be my 17th doing varsity and it has been about 10 years I have done college. I go to college games every single year to get better and so I can see plays or to just improve on my game. I also am a clinician with my state as along with being on numerous boards for association and in leadership and teaching positions. So this is not my first rodeo, but this is also not just my background, there are others commenting on this topic with similar or more experience and I do not have to mention their names. You are basically telling very experienced officials you know more than them. And not only that, you used a very singular rule and not the other rules to make a point. That usually is a big mistake when you do that as there is a reason there is a definition for Airborne shooter and another for Legal Guarding Position, Continuous Motion and even Verticality. All of those rules apply in this play, not just the one reference you gave.

Now I am going to assume because of your experience level you are using terms that do not apply to the actual rule like saying, "The defender caused the contact." Actually it is not about who causes contact, it is about who is in a legal position and what they can do relative to having the ball and not having the ball. That is why I stated that if this was not a shot the contact still would have been on the defender and being airborne would have been irrelevant to the foul being called other than to determine if we are giving Love shots or not. I would still have a foul on the defender if Love could have dribbled a step or two would have moved in a way that the contact took place. The defender gave up his right to that position.

Also I would hope that you do not use this forum or any forum to learn rules. This is a place to discuss rules, but learning rules is about you getting in the rulebook and casebook and reading interpretations. We might discuss things associated with the rules, but we do not always discuss things that should be learned from IMO.

Hey, if you think you know a lot after 3 years be my guest. I was there you were too at one point and learned the more I do this how much others around me know or what I can learn from them. Now if that makes me condescending to question your limited reference to the rules and the fact that very experienced officials are also questioning those references you gave, then so be it. Honestly that is your issue if you cannot stand by your reference. If you cannot do it here, what do you think a coach is going to do? Then what you do think the assignor/supervisor is going to ask you when he/she sees the play in question? This is a tough business and if this bothers you then you will only figure this out the longer you do this thing we all love.

Peace

Really? I'd call this a foul on the defense easily. No questions asked. You may think this is a difficult play, but IMO, this is probably one of the easier plays we've discussed here.

As I said earler. I am overthinking it, and making it harder than it needs to be.

Yep.

Peace