PC foul?

[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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by maven

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.

Really? If the offense and defense both jump straight up and are vertical, and the offensive player extends his arm to clear out the defense, he has not stayed in his vertical plane. Same for the defense, they may extend their arms but must stay in their vertical plane when doing so.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Really? If the offense and defense both jump straight up and are vertical, and the offensive player extends his arm to clear out the defense, he has not stayed in his vertical plane. Same for the defense, they may extend their arms but must stay in their vertical plane when doing so.

"Leaving the vertical plane" (sic) is not, in and of itself, an infraction. "Leaving the vertical plane and causing contact" might be.

That was the point.

[Adam]

I was thinking of screens, actually, either offensive or defensive (trying to slow the cutter).

Add to the the ball screen, which is what this play looks like to me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

I was thinking of screens, actually, either offensive or defensive (trying to slow the cutter).

Add to the the ball screen, which is what this play looks like to me.

But he is not screening, he is going airborne towards the basket for a try.

How about this play:

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

But he is not screening, he is going airborne towards the basket for a try.

How about this play:

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

I disagree. If he wanted the best shot, he just had to hold a beat and let the defender pass. Instead, he intentionally placed himself in the path of a moving opponent without the ball, giving him neither time nor distance.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

I disagree. If he wanted the best shot, he just had to hold a beat and let the defender pass. Instead, he intentionally placed himself in the path of a moving opponent without the ball, giving him neither time nor distance.

Love intentionally placed himself in the path of a moving opponent without the ball giving him neither time nor distance