[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...Lf88WbaxCB.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is incidental contact (no foul).

White #44 drives the lane when a secondary defender in red attempts steps into his path to defend the try. The defender does momentarily obtain Legal Guarding Position (LGP) by getting in the opponent's path with both feet on the floor (with a wide stance) and facing the ball handler before he elevated to attempt the try. (4-23) The defender does slide his left foot over after the shooter elevates, which many believe means the defender is no longer in LGP.

In this play, The Lead official is in an excellent position to view the contact and rules the contact to be incidental. By rule, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental. (4-27) 79.6% of respondents agree with the ruling by the Lead official.

There is an interesting aspect of this play that has caused some debate among clinicians over the years. After the ball handler jumps, the defender does move his left foot and is in a more vertical position when the contact ensues. His torso remains in the path of the ball handler, but does the fact that a defender moved a foot to get in a more vertical position before contact constitute moving to a "new spot" and negate the Legal Guarding Position? For 15% of respondents, this movement is to a "new spot" on the floor and therefore charge the defender with a blocking foul.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is incidental contact (no foul) 79% (including me). This is a defensive foul 15%. This is a player control foul 5%.