[tjchamp]

Legal guarding position is defined, generally speaking, as two feet on the floor and facing the opponent. In addition every player has a right to a spot on the floor provided the player gets there first (4-23). Who commits the foul when those two statements conflict with each other.

Sit 1: B2 is guarding A2 along the lane line, facing the basket, and moving towards the endline. A1 has the ball on the wing, and is driving to the basket. B2 with back to A1 steps into A1's path before A1 leaves the floor for a shot. B2 is not facing A1. A1 crashes into the back of B2. If a foul is to be called, who would get it? B2 has his right to the spot, he's not even trying to be a defender of A1, but he got to the spot first.

Sit 2: Same situation as above, but now say B2 is trying to be the secondary defender. This clearly would be foul on A1, as B2 has 2 feet on floor and facing opponent.

Sit 3: B2 is somewhere between facing and not facing A1 when the contact occurs.

My inclination is to call a charge in both cases 1&2, yet a block in 3 since he is not facing A1. I am struggling with these scenarios right now, and would like some guidance in how to determine what takes precedence, legal guarding or right to a spot.

Hope I have been clear in the descriptions.