PC foul?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

I would probably have a foul still on the defender. I can't speak for others but I'm not granting the offensive player additional rights because he has the ball. I'm basing it on the action of the defender. I have a defensive player and offensive player moving toward each other. Defensive player is more responsible for the contact...and since the offensive player didn't do anything like lead with an elbow/forearm/kick out w/the leg, etc, I have a foul on the defender.

So switching who has the ball would cause you to change who is charged with the foul, yet you write that you aren't basing your call on that! I can't see how you can reconcile the two.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While in some cases, I can see calling a foul on the offense when they deliberately jump towards an airborne shooter, it is still the defender who must be in the path of the opponent facing with feet down in order to have LGP. In this case, the step to make that shot attempt was roughly towards the basket....the offensive player took a path which the defender didn't yet have a legal right to occupy. I have a block in this example.

This would be no different than a defender rotating from the corner to cut off a drive from the top of the key and jumping across the shooter's path before the shooter went up. The defender doesn't get the right to a spot by getting airborne first.

If the defender was sailing by from front to back and was clearly going to pass behind the shooter but the shooter jumped back in a direction a shooter wouldn't normally take, I could see a PC foul.

Going to have to question the thought process for a couple of things in here.
When does an airborne player have the right to a landing space? I was always taught that if a space was unoccupied then anyone had a right to it as long as he got there first and without causing illegal contact. So of a defender goes airborne and will land in a certain location, can an offensive player run over to that spot or a spot in between and cause the defender to foul?
You state that this defender didn't have a right to that path. Why not? Was it occupied when he jumped? You write that he doesn't get the right to his path by going airborne first. I don't believe that is correct, but if it is, then how does he obtain this right?

You give an example of a player driving to the basket along the endline and a defender jumping into that path. You have a defensive foul. Now reverse which player has the ball. Would you allow a defender to run along the endline and take away his landing space after he has already jumped?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Going to have to question the thought process for a couple of things in here.
When does an airborne player have the right to a landing space? I was always taught that if a space was unoccupied then anyone had a right to it as long as he got there first and without causing illegal contact. So of a defender goes airborne and will land in a certain location, can an offensive player run over to that spot or a spot in between and cause the defender to foul?
You state that this defender didn't have a right to that path. Why not? Was it occupied when he jumped? You write that he doesn't get the right to his path by going airborne first. I don't believe that is correct, but if it is, then how does he obtain this right?

You give an example of a player driving to the basket along the endline and a defender jumping into that path. You have a defensive foul. Now reverse which player has the ball. Would you allow a defender to run along the endline and take away his landing space after he has already jumped?

Taught this as well. And there was no mention that this doesn't apply if a shooter might use part of this space in a yet-to-occur shot attempt.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Going to have to question the thought process for a couple of things in here.
When does an airborne player have the right to a landing space?

When he goes straight up.

I was always taught that if a space was unoccupied then anyone had a right to it as long as he got there first and without causing illegal contact. So of a defender goes airborne and will land in a certain location, can an offensive player run over to that spot or a spot in between and cause the defender to foul?

Yes. You are were you were until you get where you're going. The airborne defender doesn't have the space where he will land until he actually lands. If the offensive player beats him to that space without illegally contacting anyone, it's the offensive player's space. When the defender arrives, he will be second to the space and will have illegally contacted the offensive player.

You state that this defender didn't have a right to that path. Why not? Was it occupied when he jumped? You write that he doesn't get the right to his path by going airborne first. I don't believe that is correct, but if it is, then how does he obtain this right?

I don't understand how or why you're extending the right to a spot to a right to a path.

For me this is contact by a defender who approached from behind and pushing under 10-6-6.

Is everyone considering it a pass when he bounces the ball off his teammate at the start of the clip? Any consideration at all for illegal dribble for having his pivot foot off the floor when he pushes the ball?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Is everyone considering it a pass when he bounces the ball off his teammate at the start of the clip? Any consideration at all for illegal dribble for having his pivot foot off the floor when he pushes the ball?

Please don't cause confusion in this thread with this question. If you want to discuss that point, please start another thread.

A dribble goes to the floor. This is clearly a pass and touched another player.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Is everyone considering it a pass when he bounces the ball off his teammate at the start of the clip? Any consideration at all for illegal dribble for having his pivot foot off the floor when he pushes the ball?

Don't overthink...it's a pass. And it was a great job by the offensive player of getting himself out of a jam.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So switching who has the ball would cause you to change who is charged with the foul, yet you write that you aren't basing your call on that! I can't see how you can reconcile the two.

My answer doesn't have the prerequisite of having the ball. It just happens that in the example play, and in your hypothetical, one player has the ball. If you looked at what I said, I said the defensive player has the greater responsibility for contact when both an offensive player and defensive player are moving toward each other.

[Adam]

Let me ask this, what's the call if neither player has the ball?

[bob jenkins]

4-23 Gurading is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an OFFENSIVE opponent.

So, guarding is an act by the defense.

Only the offensive player is protected by 4-23-4b and 4-23-5d (if airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor)

So, yes, which player has the ball can be a consideration.

I have a foul on the defense.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... Now reverse which player has the ball. Would you allow a defender to run along the endline and take away his landing space after he has already jumped?

How about you answer a question? (I know you are a lawyer and used to asking all the questions without ever having to answer one yourself).


B2 is running running parallel to the endline and jumps towards the baskets and A1, approaching perpendicular to the endline, then goes airborne towards the basket and they collide mid-air. Who is the foul on?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

Let me ask this, what's the call if neither player has the ball?

Probably a no call...then again, this play doesn't happen if one of the players doesn't have the ball, so it's a moot point.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

Probably a no call...then again, this play doesn't happen if one of the players doesn't have the ball, so it's a moot point.

Yes it could. Let's assume this play is close to the endline and instead of Kevin Love, A1 = Derek Williams, and A1 is elevating to catch an alley-oop.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes it could. Let's assume this play is close to the endline and instead of Kevin Love, A1 = Derek Williams, and A1 is elevating to catch an alley-oop.

I was talking about the specific play in the OP...but I should have worded it better...these type of plays involve a play on the ball.

[OKREF]

After watching this several times and looking at the rulebook. Neither player stays within his vertical plane. Maybe it is a no call. Had the offense gone straight up and stayed in his vertical plane, than yes a foul on the defense would be warranted, but he doesn't he jumps outside of his vertical plane.

[maven]

Originally Posted by OKREF

After watching this several times and looking at the rulebook. Neither player stays within his vertical plane. Maybe it is a no call. Had the offense gone straight up and stayed in his vertical plane, than yes a foul on the defense would be warranted, but he doesn't he jumps outside of his vertical plane.

No rule requires a player to remain in his "vertical plane." Doing so is no guarantee that a player's actions are legal, and failing to do so is not as such illegal. This worry is a red herring.

The shooter is allowed to drive to the basket, and the defender to block his progress, provided each does so legally.

And whether their movements leading up to contact are legal is, of course, the question.