|
First the comment of the announcer is completely inaccurate. He states, "You have to give him room to move the ball, and Pulmer (sp?)[White #11] did not give him room to move the ball."
Under NFHS rules a defensive player does not have to give an opponent with the ball any time or distance.
4-23-4 . . . Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.
So, please, totally disregard anything that fool says.
Now to make a proper decision on this play we must determine if the defender (White #11) obtained initial legal guarding position on Blue #32.
Here is the definition of ILGP:
4-23-2 . . . To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.
To me it looks as if the defender meets both of these requirements prior to the time of contact. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the defender did not violate any of the provisions of 4-23-3, which state what he may legally do AFTER obtaining ILGP in order to maintain it. Thus I disagree with Rut's opinion that the defender was moving toward the offensive player at the time of contact, nor do I feel that the defender initated the contact.
However, the last point that Rut makes is critical. He states that it is tough to tell if the offensive player had possession of the ball at the time of the contact. I fully agree with him on this point. I had to watch the video multiple times to determine that the Blue #32 never catches the ball although he certainly tried to. He simply was never able to gain control. That means that the requirements for the defender are governed by a different rule. The defender must abide by 4-23-5 instead of 4-23-4. Here is the text of that rule:
4-23-5 . . . Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.
d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.
Since the defender came up right behind the opponent while he was attempting to catch the ball, I have to say that the defender did not give him "time and/or distance to avoid contact." I would say that one stride would have been sufficient in this case, given that the opponent was looking the other way at the ball and not moving rapidly down the court. Since he failed to do this, when the contact occurred the guard must be ruled to not have legal position, and the proper call is a blocking foul.
However, if the offense player, Blue #23, had caught the ball cleanly, or if one considers the offensive player to be stationary as he was attempting to catch the ball, then I believe that the proper call would have been a player control foul for charging. Sometimes the smallest details can make all the difference!
This was a really tough call to make for an official at full speed in live action. In the end, I think that the official made a decision and went with it.
I must say that had I been on the court and had to make a call on the spot at full speed, I would have likely gone the other way. I would have been watching the defender establish his position and not been focused on the offensive player struggling to control the ball.
|