View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 02, 2008, 05:33pm
Back In The Saddle Back In The Saddle is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmara View Post
...It's all relative to time, distance, and initiation of contact....
Not entirely true. NFHS 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."

When guarding a (non-airborne) player with the ball, all that is required is for the guard to get to his spot legally first. If he does this, it's his spot. No time or distance required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpea View Post
imo, can't have a "no call" here....the contact affected the play causing the ball to go out of bounds. gotta have something!

based on what you've described, I'm probably calling a blocking foul. sounds like the defender established legal gaurding position, but did not move to maintain LGP as the offensive player moved. block!

if you don't like the block call, then ask yourself this....did the offensive player create/gain an advantage as the result of his contact w/ the defender? (because that is basically what a charge/offensive foul is, right?...)
There is no legal requirement for a guard to move to maintain LGP. If the guard chooses not to move, he is still entitled to the spot he legally occupied first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee View Post
Tripping over someone's foot is likely because that foot is outside the cylinder that each person is entitled to. Brushing an opponent likely means that contact was on the outside edge of the shoulder. You would have to decide if the contact on the shoulder warrants a PC foul (highly unlikely), or the possible foot-outside-the-cylinder contact caused a block (more likely).
...
If the contact was the legal body position, I have a no call. If the contact was the illegal foot position, I have a blocking foul.
Exactly. If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, then he has not gotten to the spot legally first.

NFHS 4-23 "...A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, he has extended his leg. In this situation it would seem that the extended leg is in the path of the opponent.

Obviously a HTBT, but the principles are pretty clear cut I think.

As always, just my $0.02.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote