I don't know the exact rule, but I'm curious how many feet the shooter is allowed to come down when shooting such a shot? Or is it just up to the refs to make the call on the fly? Seems to be a lot of grey area there.

 

Not saying you're wrong, it would be nice to know the difference in the rule between a running shooter or a jump shooter as far as being allowed to land safely after the shot attempt. This type of shot is similar to a guard driving from the three point line and putting up a floater around the foul line instead of stopping for a jumpshot at the foul line. Are they not given freedom of movement in that instance either?

 

You are correct on the floaters in the lane and if you watch those they are almost always called a charge. I think the officials got it right with a no call. That’s what I would’ve done just as they did. My point was the two choices was not a block or charge imo but it was either a no call or charge and I think the refs did the right thing.

You are correct on the floaters in the lane and if you watch those they are almost always called a charge. I think the officials got it right with a no call. That’s what I would’ve done just as they did. My point was the two choices was not a block or charge imo but it was either a no call or charge and I think the refs did the right thing.

 

I never knew they weren't given room to land safely on floaters, that rule should change, imo. Of course unless the defender in that situation is already set in place and does not move once the player left the ground. In this case however the defender was not set before Villars left the ground, he slid in underneath him after he had already left the ground. So a no call was likely right whether the shot went in or not.

I never knew they weren't given room to land safely on floaters, that rule should change, imo. Of course unless the defender in that situation is already set in place and does not move once the player left the ground. In this case however the defender was not set before Villars left the ground, he slid in underneath him after he had already left the ground. So a no call was likely right whether the shot went in or not.

 

^ This is what I saw as well. After Villers was in the air the defender moved to the left into the space where he would land after the shot. In that case to me that would be more of a block on the defense than a charge. But the refs made the correct decision. Just about every official will call that a no-call under those circumstances.

I agree the no call was the right call.

I never knew they weren't given room to land safely on floaters, that rule should change, imo. Of course unless the defender in that situation is already set in place and does not move once the player left the ground. In this case however the defender was not set before Villars left the ground, he slid in underneath him after he had already left the ground. So a no call was likely right whether the shot went in or not.

 

A floater is basically a layup from range. If the defensive player had to allow for landing room on a floater or layup, then the only legal charge would be after the offensive player had already shot, landed and ran into the defensive player.