The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Legal Guarding Position (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/101452-legal-guarding-position.html)

RefBob Tue Jun 21, 2016 05:24pm
Legal Guarding Position
 
I came across NFHS Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A with a result that I was not expecting. In the scenario, B1 is legally occupying a spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass. B1 then moves to a new spot (while A1 is airborne). A1 then lands on one foot and charges into B1. Foul on A1.

CB 10.6.1 Situation C has a scenario with airborne shooter A1 with language that says if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1.

Why the different results? I know that in Situation A, A1 is not a shooter, but NFHS Rules 4-23-4b and 4-23-5d seem to have the same language for establishing a legal guarding position on an airborne opponent with or without the ball - "the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

Not sure what I'm missing.

Thanks.

Raymond Tue Jun 21, 2016 05:26pm
Because in the first situation he landed so he's no longer an Airborne player

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

JRutledge Tue Jun 21, 2016 05:28pm
The first play, A1 came back to the floor. He was given a chance to land and then contacts B1.

The second play A1 never got a chance to get back to the floor and that is why it is a foul on B1.

Again, go back and read what a legal B1 can do with an airborne player and what they cannot. There is your answer. ;)

Peace

Camron Rust Tue Jun 21, 2016 05:37pm
Also note that in neither case is moving prohibited after the opponent is airborne. What is prohibited is moving INTO the path of an airborne opponent. That means a defender who is in the path of an opponent can legally continue to move....backwards, or even sideways. However, sideways movement, if the player was already in the path serves no useful purpose. Don't penalize a defender who legally gets in the path in time, but adjusts sideways for some reason when they would have been hit either way.

RefBob Tue Jun 21, 2016 06:26pm
Thanks for the replies. I imagine the issue is figuring out what is exactly moving into the path of an airborne opponent. It seems pretty tough that A1 goes full speed for a layup, checks before he goes airborne that no B players are in front of him, lands with one (or two) feet and then because of his momentum immediately contacts B1 who established a court spot while A1 was airborne right in front of where he knew A1 was going to land and contact him - and then A1 gets called for a foul. A1 never would have had a chance to see B1.

justacoach Tue Jun 21, 2016 07:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988666)
Thanks for the replies. I imagine the issue is figuring out what is exactly moving into the path of an airborne opponent. It seems pretty tough that A1 goes full speed for a layup, checks before he goes airborne that no B players are in front of him, lands with one (or two) feet and then because of his momentum immediately contacts B1 who established a court spot while A1 was airborne right in front of where he knew A1 was going to land and contact him - and then A1 gets called for a foul. A1 never would have had a chance to see B1.
Sorry, the issue is figuring out the definition of airborne shooter. Once you grasp that simple concept, the other questions answer themselves.

RefBob Tue Jun 21, 2016 08:42pm
Makes sense when you focus on the fact that, by definition, A1 is not an airborne shooter after he returns to the floor. So he would be subject to the contact rules of any other player. So I see everyone's point. Is my thinking correct that if A1 made the shot, and the contact with B1 was after the ball went through the ring the ball would be dead so the contact (assuming it was not intentional or flagrant) could be ignored? Even if the contact couldn't be ignored, I assume the basket would count?

Thanks again, and appreciate the expertise.

JetMetFan Wed Jun 22, 2016 04:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988669)
Makes sense when you focus on the fact that, by definition, A1 is not an airborne shooter after he returns to the floor. So he would be subject to the contact rules of any other player. So I see everyone's point. Is my thinking correct that if A1 made the shot, and the contact with B1 was after the ball went through the ring the ball would be dead so the contact (assuming it was not intentional or flagrant) could be ignored? Even if the contact couldn't be ignored, I assume the basket would count?

Thanks again, and appreciate the expertise.
My turn.

Check out NF 4-19-1 NOTE and NF 5-1-2.

deecee Wed Jun 22, 2016 07:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988669)
Makes sense when you focus on the fact that, by definition, A1 is not an airborne shooter after he returns to the floor. So he would be subject to the contact rules of any other player. So I see everyone's point. Is my thinking correct that if A1 made the shot, and the contact with B1 was after the ball went through the ring the ball would be dead so the contact (assuming it was not intentional or flagrant) could be ignored? Even if the contact couldn't be ignored, I assume the basket would count?

Thanks again, and appreciate the expertise.
IF there is contact after a made basket why would you ever cancel the score?

What would you do if an airborne shooter lands, then runs over a defender, then the ball goes through the basket. Let's assume the contact IS a foul.

bob jenkins Wed Jun 22, 2016 08:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988666)
Thanks for the replies. I imagine the issue is figuring out what is exactly moving into the path of an airborne opponent. It seems pretty tough that A1 goes full speed for a layup, checks before he goes airborne that no B players are in front of him, lands with one (or two) feet and then because of his momentum immediately contacts B1 who established a court spot while A1 was airborne right in front of where he knew A1 was going to land and contact him - and then A1 gets called for a foul. A1 never would have had a chance to see B1.
A1 would NOT be called for a foul in this situation. A1 no longer has the ball -- so the guarding rules on "a moving player with the ball" don't apply.

Read the guarding and screening rules and note the difference between stationary and moving; with the ball and without; airborne shooter.

Pantherdreams Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:09am
Scenario in the OP is not an Airborne shooter. A1 jumped to catch a pass.

Camron Rust Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988666)
Thanks for the replies. I imagine the issue is figuring out what is exactly moving into the path of an airborne opponent. It seems pretty tough that A1 goes full speed for a layup, checks before he goes airborne that no B players are in front of him, lands with one (or two) feet and then because of his momentum immediately contacts B1 who established a court spot while A1 was airborne right in front of where he knew A1 was going to land and contact him - and then A1 gets called for a foul. A1 never would have had a chance to see B1.
A1 sure had a chance to see B1. B1 didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Only if A1 was driving with his eyes closed would A1 not be able to see the defenders that were close enough to be relevant. A1 could have determined that B1 would be able to get into a position to draw a foul and could have made a different choice.

RefBob Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 988675)
My turn.

Check out NF 4-19-1 NOTE and NF 5-1-2.
These references are helpful. A1 is not an airborne shooter at the time of the contact with B1. Therefore, A1's contact with B1 is not a player control foul. The basket counts and the ball is dead when A1's shot went through the basket. No foul on A1's contact with B1 after the ball is dead unless intentional or flagrant. Different result if A1 missed the shot and the ball was still live. Then you would have to assess A1's contact on B1 as in any contact scenario.

RefBob Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee (Post 988676)
IF there is contact after a made basket why would you ever cancel the score?



What would you do if an airborne shooter lands, then runs over a defender, then the ball goes through the basket. Let's assume the contact IS a foul.
You're right you wouldn't. Unless there was a player control foul as per NFHS Rule 5-2, which was not the case here.

No player or team is in control after the ball is in flight. So under NFHS Rule 6-7-7, Exception a., the ball is not dead until the try ends. Basket counts, then enforce the foul.

JRutledge Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988681)
These references are helpful. A1 is not an airborne shooter at the time of the contact with B1. Therefore, A1's contact with B1 is not a player control foul. The basket counts and the ball is dead when A1's shot went through the basket. No foul on A1's contact with B1 after the ball is dead unless intentional or flagrant. Different result if A1 missed the shot and the ball was still live. Then you would have to assess A1's contact on B1 as in any contact scenario.
This might be different than your play as well because the ball did not have to go in at all and the play is still live (Sorry I do not have my casebook with me to read the reference). If that is the case, this is still a live ball foul and not a PC foul as well. So the basket would count if all this happen while the ball was not in the basket yet. Again the major mistake I see you making is assuming there is some rule that suggests that B1 is not in a legal position. B1 never has to get out of the way of a shooter or a player just returning to the floor when they have gotten to their spot legally and maintained their legal position.

Peace

RefBob Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 988677)
A1 would NOT be called for a foul in this situation. A1 no longer has the ball -- so the guarding rules on "a moving player with the ball" don't apply.

Read the guarding and screening rules and note the difference between stationary and moving; with the ball and without; airborne shooter.
Now I'm really confused. The way I read Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A, this is a foul on A1 and the posts above all explain that the reason why is that A1 is not airborne once he has returned to the floor. The discussion also expanded a bit to reference A1 as an airborne shooter, and the analysis is the same. Once A1 returns to the floor he is no longer an airborne shooter. Given the above posts, if A1 missed his shot and the ball is still live, why would it not be a foul on A1 if after landing he ran over B1?

Interesting reference to the screening rules. Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A did not talk about whether B1 had set a legal screen on a moving opponent without the ball (A1). In the Case Book Situation A, "A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1." B1 certainly didn't seem to give A1 at least one stride as per 4-40-5. Presumably, the official would have to judge whether B1 "moving to a new spot" as in Situation A while A1 was airborne was or was not B1 setting a screen.

bob jenkins Wed Jun 22, 2016 02:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988686)
Now I'm really confused. The way I read Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A, this is a foul on A1 and the posts above all explain that the reason why is that A1 is not airborne once he has returned to the floor. The discussion also expanded a bit to reference A1 as an airborne shooter, and the analysis is the same. Once A1 returns to the floor he is no longer an airborne shooter. Given the above posts, if A1 missed his shot and the ball is still live, why would it not be a foul on A1 if after landing he ran over B1? Because A1 no longer has the ball.

Interesting reference to the screening rules. Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A did not talk about whether B1 had set a legal screen on a moving opponent without the ball (A1). In the Case Book Situation A, "A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1." B1 certainly didn't seem to give A1 at least one stride as per 4-40-5. Presumably, the official would have to judge whether B1 "moving to a new spot" as in Situation A while A1 was airborne was or was not B1 setting a screen. You only need to give a stride on to a moving player without the ball. In the case play, A1 had the ball, and was given room to come down (on one foot). So, B does not need to give any more room, and as long as B is now legal, it's a foul on A1.
See answers above -- but I don't have the case book handy, and the discussion has mutated enough that I'm not entirely certain to which plays you are referring

Camron Rust Wed Jun 22, 2016 06:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 988692)
See answers above -- but I don't have the case book handy, and the discussion has mutated enough that I'm not entirely certain to which plays you are referring
I believe he is not recognizing the change timing requirements for obtaining a legal guarding position.

If A1 has the ball, B1 just only get a legal position just before contact. If A2 does not have the ball, B1 must get a legal position allowing A1, if moving, 1 to 2 steps to avoid contact.

In the case he's talking about where A1 lands with one foot down and immediately collides with B1, there are two possibilities....

1. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but before A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player with the ball.
2. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but after A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player without the ball.

A position by B1 that is legal doesn't become illegal by actions of A1 (releasing the ball).

RefBob Wed Jun 22, 2016 06:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 988697)
I believe he is not recognizing the change timing requirements for obtaining a legal guarding position.

If A1 has the ball, B1 just only get a legal position just before contact. If A2 does not have the ball, B1 must get a legal position allowing A1, if moving, 1 to 2 steps to avoid contact.

In the case he's talking about where A1 lands with one foot down and immediately collides with B1, there are two possibilities....

1. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but before A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player with the ball.
2. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but after A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player without the ball.

A position by B1 that is legal doesn't become illegal by actions of A1 (releasing the ball).
Got it, and appreciate all the help. In retrospect, I was overthinking this, or maybe just not really understanding the basic principles.

Thanks again.

bob jenkins Thu Jun 23, 2016 08:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 988697)
I believe he is not recognizing the change timing requirements for obtaining a legal guarding position.

If A1 has the ball, B1 just only get a legal position just before contact. If A2 does not have the ball, B1 must get a legal position allowing A1, if moving, 1 to 2 steps to avoid contact.

In the case he's talking about where A1 lands with one foot down and immediately collides with B1, there are two possibilities....

1. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but before A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player with the ball.
2. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but after A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player without the ball.

A position by B1 that is legal doesn't become illegal by actions of A1 (releasing the ball).
Agreed, and an illegal position can (but doesn't always) become legal by the actions of A1 obtaining the ball (as in the case play referenced at the start of this thread).

Hmm... what happens if A1 without the ball goes airborne, b1 then moves into the path (but beyond the landing spot), A1 receives the ball (making B1's position legal), A1 then passes the ball, lands on one foot and crashes into B1?

Adam Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by requintero (Post 988666)
Thanks for the replies. I imagine the issue is figuring out what is exactly moving into the path of an airborne opponent. It seems pretty tough that A1 goes full speed for a layup, checks before he goes airborne that no B players are in front of him, lands with one (or two) feet and then because of his momentum immediately contacts B1 who established a court spot while A1 was airborne right in front of where he knew A1 was going to land and contact him - and then A1 gets called for a foul. A1 never would have had a chance to see B1.
He should have expected defensive pressure. Nothing forces A1 to jump in a way that causes a foul.

It's a play we can imagine, but not one we really see.

Camron Rust Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 988725)
Agreed, and an illegal position can (but doesn't always) become legal by the actions of A1 obtaining the ball (as in the case play referenced at the start of this thread).

Hmm... what happens if A1 without the ball goes airborne, b1 then moves into the path (but beyond the landing spot), A1 receives the ball (making B1's position legal), A1 then passes the ball, lands on one foot and crashes into B1?
Good question.

I think that B1 would be legal. Once A1 has the ball, the time & distance requirements are met making B1's position legal. A1 then giving up the ball doesn't negate a position that was legal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1