3 point shots

[dviss1]

dviss, didn't the league go through this with the Durant up-and-under motion that got called as a defensive foul for a year or two? How is that different than what blue just said...(excepting the T, of course). Did the 3rd ref have to start watching different parts of the action?

So you're saying you'd call offensive foul on that? I wouldn't. The only difference is that it's not called a shooting foul. It's still a foul though, and certainly not an offensive foul or an unsportsmanlike foul.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So you're saying you'd call offensive foul on that? I wouldn't. The only difference is that it's not called a shooting foul. It's still a foul though, and certainly not an offensive foul or an unsportsmanlike foul.

No, i literally was just asking. for all the stuff i pretend to know or have done related to bb, reffing on the floor is not one of them.

 

[dviss1]

No, i literally was just asking. for all the stuff i pretend to know or have done related to bb, reffing on the floor is not one of them.

They addressed that because it's cheap, it stops the clock, it wastes time with unnecessary free throws. That's all. It's still a defensive foul. What @blue9 is suggesting is a bit nonsensical.

 

[blue9]

I did miss that but it's not called ”legal defense".

It's called a legal guarding position. And based upon your answer I'm not sure you know how that is defined.

I was responding using the language you used in your question: "Do you know what the definition of a legal defender is?"

 

[blue9]

They addressed that because it's cheap, it stops the clock, it wastes time with unnecessary free throws. That's all. It's still a defensive foul. What @blue9 is suggesting is a bit nonsensical.

You're really okay with shooters jumping sideways or diagonally on long jumpers just so they can create contact that otherwise wouldn't happen?

 

[dviss1]

You're really okay with shooters jumping sideways or diagonally on long jumpers just so they can create contact that otherwise wouldn't happen?

Yes.

It's completely legal to jump in any direction you want and I would not institute a rule change that would hinder freedom of movement. The bottom line is if a defender remains vertical and square, maintaining his verticality, he can leave his feet and still remain legal. Any contact is then on the offense.

The game is about freedom of movement.

 

[blue9]

Yes.

It's completely legal to jump in any direction you want and I would not institute a rule change that would hinder freedom of movement. The bottom line is if a defender remains vertical and square, maintaining his verticality, he can leave his feet and still remain legal. Any contact is then on the offense.

The game is about freedom of movement.

I just...I...just...don't even...know you anymore...FAMS. [shakes head in disappointment]

 

[KingSpeed]

Speaking of "Okafor," WEHT Emeka??

 

[dviss1]

I just...I...just...don't even...know you anymore...FAMS. [shakes head in disappointment]

Please, go referee some middle school games. I'll train you. No joke.

I'm serious Adonal Foyle. I'd train anyone who wanted to learn. The game is sorely lacking for dedicated referees. It's not an easy job. I truly think more people need to get on that side of the whistle. I've done it all from fan, to player, to coach, then referee.

The rules of vertically are perfect in every way. Changing them like you want would not only change the fundamentals of the game, it would do it a disservice.

 

[blue9]

Please, go referee some middle school games. I'll train you. No joke.

I'm serious Adonal Foyle. I'd train anyone who wanted to learn. The game is sorely lacking for dedicated referees. It's not an easy job. I truly think more people need to get on that side of the whistle. I've done it all from fan, to player, to coach, then referee.

The rules of vertically are perfect in every way. Changing them like you want would not only change the fundamentals of the game, it would do it a disservice.

That's kind of you, and if I had more free time I'd totally take you up on that!
But I'd institute my own set of rules and not allow a 3-point shooter to jump sideways just so they can get 3 free throws.

 

[dviss1]

That's kind of you, and if I had more free time I'd totally take you up on that!
But I'd institute my own set of rules and not allow a 3-point shooter to jump sideways just so they can get 3 free throws.

 

[rotary111]

That's kind of you, and if I had more free time I'd totally take you up on that!
But I'd institute my own set of rules and not allow a 3-point shooter to jump sideways just so they can get 3 free throws.

I agree 100 percent! It's the deliberate contact that wouldn't have happened unless the offensive player initiated it. It's kind of like the flopping rule on defense.

 

[dviss1]

I agree 100 percent! It's the deliberate contact that wouldn't have happened unless the offensive player initiated it. It's kind of like the flopping rule on defense.

Not true at all. If the Defense jumps straight up in his vertical plane contact is NOT a foul. When he jumps toward the player he's NOT jumping vertically.

You change the principle of verticality and you literally ruin the game.

So please guys, get a bit of a clue here.

 

[blue9]

Not true at all. If the Defense jumps straight up in his vertical plane contact is NOT a foul. When he jumps toward the player he's NOT jumping vertically.

You change the principle of verticality and you literally ruin the game.

So please guys, get a bit of a clue here.

Sorry man, just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's right. Just as laws aren't always just, rules aren't always right. When closing out on a 3-point shooter the defender should be allowed to jump towards the player with the intention of going past the player without coming into contact with the player. No shooter would ever jump sideways when shooting a jump shot other than in an attempt to draw contact. So it's entirely reasonable for a defender to plan their trajectory to the side of the player. Once they leave their feet they own the airspace through which they're traveling, just like a defender can be sliding and still pick up a charge.

The sideways jumping only really started becoming a problem when they started calling leg kickouts. So rather than kick their leg out to draw contact, they're now jumping sideways into a defender who never would have come into contact with them if they didn't unnaturally create the contact. But the sideways jump is even more egregious than leg kicks and rip throughs - both of which the NBA has decided are offensive fouls.

I feel like you think we're talking about contact on drives - that's where verticality should be applied. Some sort of verticality (linearality?) should be applied to the offensive player on jump shots. Otherwise you're creating a set of rules that makes it impossible to closeout on jump shots - nobody jumps vertically when closing out on a shooter. It's just that most players have enough decency and respect for the game not to bastardize it by jumping into a defender sailing past them or landing a foot in front of them.

 

[dviss1]

Sorry man, just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's right. Just as laws aren't always just, rules aren't always right. When closing out on a 3-point shooter the defender should be allowed to jump towards the player with the intention of going past the player without coming into contact with the player. No shooter would ever jump sideways when shooting a jump shot other than in an attempt to draw contact. So it's entirely reasonable for a defender to plan their trajectory to the side of the player. Once they leave their feet they own the airspace through which they're traveling, just like a defender can be sliding and still pick up a charge.

The sideways jumping only really started becoming a problem when they started calling leg kickouts. So rather than kick their leg out to draw contact, they're now jumping sideways into a defender who never would have come into contact with them if they didn't unnaturally create the contact. But the sideways jump is even more egregious than leg kicks and rip throughs - both of which the NBA has decided are offensive fouls.

I feel like you think we're talking about contact on drives - that's where verticality should be applied. Some sort of verticality (linearality?) should be applied to the offensive player on jump shots. Otherwise you're creating a set of rules that makes it impossible to closeout on jump shots - nobody jumps vertically when closing out on a shooter. It's just that most players have enough decency and respect for the game not to bastardize it by jumping into a defender sailing past them or landing a foot in front of them.

No offense man but you truly don't know what your talking about.

Jumping up in your vertical plane does NOT take you out of legal defense and ANY contact is not a foul.

 

[dviss1]

And as an offensive player you are SUPPOSED to create contact against defenders that aren't legal. Stay legal as a defender and you and I aren't having this discussion.

 

[dviss1]

But the sideways jump is even more egregious than leg kicks and rip throughs - both of which the NBA has decided are offensive fouls.

You are wrong about this. The NBA rule is on verticality. If I jump straight up in my plane and a person jumps sideways into me a foul is NOT called. Those are called when the defender does NOT jump straight up.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You are wrong about this. The NBA rule is on verticality. If I jump straight up in my plane and a person jumps sideways into me a foul is NOT called. Those are called when the defender does NOT jump straight up.

I think you two are arguing different things. By my reading, Blue isn't claiming that people are getting called for fouls when they jump straight up. He's concerned about fouls that get called when a player is attempting to jump past a shooter.

Let's take a slightly different tack: when defending a player on the dribble, I can maintain legal guarding position while moving with him, yes? And even if I'm still moving, if he runs into (and through) me, it's a charge, yes?

Now picture the exact same scenario, except instead of just running with him, I jump along the same horizontal plane on which I was running. Because I've left my feet, and not done so completely vertically, I'm no longer in a legal guarding position, even though I would be if I had simply run across the same place on the court?

Do I have that correct? If not, please clarify.

 

[dviss1]

I think you two are arguing different things. By my reading, Blue isn't claiming that people are getting called for fouls when they jump straight up. He's concerned about fouls that get called when a player is attempting to jump past a shooter.

Let's take a slightly different tack: when defending a player on the dribble, I can maintain legal guarding position while moving with him, yes? And even if I'm still moving, if he runs into (and through) me, it's a charge, yes?

Now picture the exact same scenario, except instead of just running with him, I jump along the same horizontal plane on which I was running. Because I've left my feet, and not done so completely vertically, I'm no longer in a legal guarding position, even though I would be if I had simply run across the same place on the court?

Do I have that correct? If not, please clarify.

Simple. Don't jump over a guys head. The rule is he owns his spot from the floor to the ceiling. If you are jumping over his head you are illegal.

 

[dviss1]

He's concerned about fouls that get called when a player is attempting to jump past a shooter.

Let's take a slightly different tack: when defending a player on the dribble, I can maintain legal guarding position while moving with him, yes? And even if I'm still moving, if he runs into (and through) me, it's a charge, yes?

Now picture the exact same scenario, except instead of just running with him, I jump along the same horizontal plane on which I was running. Because I've left my feet, and not done so completely vertically, I'm no longer in a legal guarding position, even though I would be if I had simply run across the same place on the court?

Do I have that correct? If not, please clarify.

When you leave your feet you must jump vertically. You cannot maintain a legal guarding position jumping "along the same horizontal plane".

And that's a horrible, non fundamental closeout. Closing out on a shooter doesn't even require you to jump.

Blue wants us to reward bad defense. We should never institute rules that don't allow the offense to exploit bad D.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

When you leave your feet you must jump vertically. You cannot maintain a legal guarding position jumping "along the same horizontal plane".

Sounds to me like that's the aspect of the rule that Blue disagrees with and would like to have changed.

I can't say I disagree with him. Bad technique shouldn't necessarily be illegal (IMO).

 

[blue9]

No offense man but you truly don't know what your talking about.

Jumping up in your vertical plane does NOT take you out of legal defense and ANY contact is not a foul.

I think you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. I never said EITHER of those things.

 

[blue9]

Show me a defender maintaining verticality while closing out on a shooter*. It. Doesn't. Happen.

*Again, I'm talking jumpers not drives.

 

[dviss1]

Sounds to me like that's the aspect of the rule that Blue disagrees with and would like to have changed.

I can't say I disagree with him. Bad technique shouldn't necessarily be illegal (IMO).

If I were present with you now, I could explain this better but here is the verticality rule. You own your spot from the floor to the ceiling. If I jump above you, I'm not legal.

 

[dviss1]

Show me a defender maintaining verticality while closing out on a shooter*. It. Doesn't. Happen.

*Again, I'm talking jumpers not drives.

I happens every game. And I know you're not talking about drives. A proper closeout does NOT require a player to leave his feet.

When you see a player jumping and lunging at a shooter they are ALWAYS out of position.

Fundamentals.

 

[blue9]

If I were present with you now, I could explain this better but here is the verticality rule. You own your spot from the floor to the ceiling. If I jump above you, I'm not legal.

Nobody is disputing that.
But you seem to be saying if a defender jumps into the space to the side of a stationary offensive player that the offensive player also owns that space. And that's not right.

 

[dviss1]

Nobody is disputing that.
But you seem to be saying if a defender jumps into the space to the side of a stationary offensive player that the offensive player also owns that space. And that's not right.

Dog, you're on some weird shit.

Bottom line:

A guy can jump in any direction they want. It's on the defense to remain legal.

First rule of Defense = STAY ON YOUR FEET.

 

[blue9]

I happens every game. And I know you're not talking about drives. A proper closeout does NOT require a player to leave his feet.

When you see a player jumping and lunging at a shooter they are ALWAYS out of position.

And yet THAT happens EVERY game. And it's by design. Defenders sag towards the middle giving space to weakside players, and then closeout if that player gets the ball and goes into a shooting motion. Sometimes they read the play quickly and are able to stay on the ground on their close out, sometimes they're a little late and their guy is already in a shooting motion so they jump to get a hand in their face. According to you they shouldn't even attempt to get a hand in the shooter's face.
Sure, in an ideal game each defender stays stuck to their assignment's hip and never has to close out. But that literally never happens.

 

[dviss1]

And yet THAT happens EVERY game. And it's by design. Defenders sag towards the middle giving space to weakside players, and then closeout if that player gets the ball and goes into a shooting motion. Sometimes they read the play quickly and are able to stay on the ground on their close out, sometimes they're a little late and their guy is already in a shooting motion so they jump to get a hand in their face. According to you they shouldn't even attempt to get a hand in the shooter's face.
Sure, in an ideal game each defender stays stuck to their assignment's hip and never has to close out. But that literally never happens.

Have you ever coached basketball? Serious question.

 

[blue9]

Have you ever coached basketball? Serious question.

Nope. But don't try to say that because I'm not a cook I don't know when a dish is burnt.