Michigan-Louisville shooting foul clip (Hancock/Burke 1st half)

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So I will post again:
So instead of jumping what if the offensive player took one dribble over to that spot and the defensive player landed on him? Would you still not want a foul called?

If the defensive player stays vertical he doesn't have to worry about a foul call.

So are we only protecting an offensive player who's in the air, allowing him to land, without someone stepping underneath him?

Not me, that philosophy applies to both an offensive and a defensive player.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So are we only protecting an offensive player who's in the air, allowing him to land, without someone stepping underneath him?

Not me, that philosophy applies to both an offensive and a defensive player.

So you think that if a defender gets in the air first, they get the right to land?

Lets say you have a shooter driving from the top of the key and you have a defender rotating from the corner. The defender, while running to get in front of the shooter jumps. Then the shooter continues and jumps (maybe even stepping to the side to get a better angle, but could have easily pulled up for a mid-range jumper too). The two collide. Do you think the defender is legal because they got in the air first? Seems like that is what you're claiming. And you would be correct if the shooter was guarding the defender or setting a screen on the defender, but that isn't what is happening.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So you think that if a defender gets in the air first, they get the right to land?

Lets say you have a shooter driving from the top of the key and you have a defender rotating from the corner. The defender, while running to get in front of the shooter jumps. Then the shooter continues and jumps (maybe even stepping to the side to get a better angle, but could have easily pulled up for a mid-range jumper too). The two collide. Do you think the defender is legal because they got in the air first? Seems like that is what you're claiming. And you would be correct if the shooter was guarding the defender or setting a screen on the defender, but that isn't what is happening.

I think I already answered, but yes, the defender has a right to land. If he doesn't have that right, aren't we not putting that player's safety at risk? Any player in the air is vulnerable, doesn't matter if a ball is in his hands or not. Making intentional contact with that player before that player lands is dangerous and should not be rewarded.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I think I already answered, but yes, the defender has a right to land. If he doesn't have that right, aren't we not putting that player's safety at risk? Any player in the air is vulnerable, doesn't matter if a ball is in his hands or not. Making intentional contact with that player before that player lands is dangerous and should not be rewarded.

So this is no longer about the rules but rather what certain fans believe should be the rule. I get it now.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I think I already answered, but yes, the defender has a right to land. If he doesn't have that right, aren't we not putting that player's safety at risk? Any player in the air is vulnerable, doesn't matter if a ball is in his hands or not. Making intentional contact with that player before that player lands is dangerous and should not be rewarded.

This is where you're wrong. A defender doesn't have the right to land if doing so takes away from the opponents right to perform their actions.

The rules on airborne players are in relation to "guarding". They protect offensive players from being guarded illegally. They don't protect defensive players.

The defender has the responsibility to play defense within the guidelines of legal guarding. Jumping laterally is not within those guidelines. The only jump that is protected for the defender is a vertical jump.

This defender was moving but never had LGP. Even if he had LGP, jumping sideways and towards the shooter removes the protection of LGP. Any contact that happens is the responsibility of the defender.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is where you're wrong. A defender doesn't have the right to land if doing so takes away from the opponents right to perform their actions.

The rules on airborne players are in relation to "guarding". They protect offensive players from being guarded illegally. They don't protect defensive players.

The defender has the responsibility to play defense within the guidelines of legal guarding. Jumping laterally is not within those guidelines. The only jump that is protected for the defender is a vertical jump.

This defender was moving but never had LGP. Even if he had LGP, jumping sideways and towards the shooter removes the protection of LGP. Any contact that happens is the responsibility of the defender.

I hear what you're saying. Any defender without LGP that decides to jump in the air is free game for the ballhandler/shooter to collide into any part of that defender and most likely be rewarded for doing so. I think that sums it up....