The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Legal Guarding Position + Wackiness (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/102722-legal-guarding-position-wackiness.html)

bucky Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:27am

Legal Guarding Position + Wackiness
 
Another thread involving LGP and recent NFHS docs, got me thinking (uh oh!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1006451)

4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal
guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot
touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when
A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul
because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding
position.
In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained
and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

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.
4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18
4. Guarding. ... Once a defensive player obtains legal guarding position by facing an opponent with both feet of the floor inbounds, he/she may move to maintain that position in any direction except toward the offensive player being guarded when contact occurs. The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court and may jump vertically or laterally to maintain the legal position. If contact occurs prior to the offensive player getting head and shoulders passed the defender the responsibility is on the offensive player.


Play 1: A1 scores a layup, his momentum carries him OOB, and his shoe comes off. While still OOB, A1 grabs his shoe, takes a knee, and begins putting his shoe on. B1 gathers the ball after it is scored and sees A1 kneeling. B1 simply, while OOB, runs into the kneeling A1. Is it an automatic foul on A1 because A1 was not in a LGP as he was not inbounds?

Play 2: A1 and B2 have been defending each other the entire game. A1 scores a layup and his momentum carries him OOB. While OOB, he turns, steps IB, and begins to run back on defense. B1 secures the ball after the layup, goes OOB, and makes a throw-in to B2, who is IB. B2 quickly dribbles up the court and runs into A1 (back is to B2) from behind. Is it an automatic foul on A1 because A1 was not in a LGP as he was never facing his opponent?


Silly, I know, but are these examples of loopholes in the wording used for LGP? Or, is there an obvious misinterpretation?:rolleyes:

justacoach Mon Jun 05, 2017 01:00am

Bucky, you are severely over-thinking this LGP thing.

Without regard to LGP, each player is entitled to their spot, on the floor, provided they got that spot thru legal means.

They can be facing any direction, jumping or waving to their mom in the stands, and cannot be illegally displaced from that spot.

LGP just denotes the player has additional prerogatives to take actions, after having legally gained their spot. You may move sideways, obliquely or backwards and, only by moving forward the offensive player do you subject yourself to a foul.

Burn this concept in your mind and you will always come up with the correct answer no matter how obtuse the situation.

Applies to NFHS terps, ymmv as to NCAA and NBA

Nevadaref Mon Jun 05, 2017 02:41am

There was an example of your Play 2 in the NFHS Simplified. & Illustrated book several years ago. I've cited it before on this forum. The ruling is a charging foul. The reason is that the defender is entitled to his spot on the floor.

The reason is the same for your Play 1.

I do question the language of the POE in one aspect. It says that a defender may jump laterally to maintain LGP. I don't believe that is true.

Freddy Mon Jun 05, 2017 03:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1006488)
B1 simply, while OOB, runs into the kneeling A1...

B2 quickly dribbles up the court and runs into A1 (back is to B2) from behind...

LGP necessitates "guarding." "Standing there" or "being there" or "kneeling there", in fact (in NFHS, anyway), "lying there" isn't "guarding," is it?

OKREF Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1006491)
I do question the language of the POE in one aspect. It says that a defender may jump laterally to maintain LGP. I don't believe that is true.

If you can move laterally and maintain LGP, why can't you jump laterally? As long as you're not going forward.

Camron Rust Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 1006519)
If you can move laterally and maintain LGP, why can't you jump laterally? As long as you're not going forward.

Agree. It only depends on whether the defender maintained a position IN the path the entire time. If so, they can move sideways. Nothing specifies or limits how they are permitted to move sideways.

SNIPERBBB Mon Jun 05, 2017 02:16pm

There is much more fun discussion on play 1...

deecee Mon Jun 05, 2017 02:21pm

Play 1 is ridiculous. If I see this at the varsity level and it was an accident I'm just going to blow the play dead and resume with the team having the right to run the endline. If the ball has been passed into play, I'm liable to just not have anything unless these 2 players escalate.

Play 2 is a foul on the ball handler. Everyone has a right to the spot on the floor that they occupy. LGP is NOT the only requirement for contact between a defender and offensive player for a foul to be called on the offense. LGP only has to do with block/charge call determination.

bucky Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:15am

Overthinking? For sure, no argument there.

All good responses and appreciated. All make good sense.

Raymond Tue Jun 06, 2017 08:58am

So, if Team A is entitled to run the end line, we are going to allow B1 to kneel down OOB and prevent A1 from running the end line? We are going to call that incidental contact if A1 trips over B1?

JRutledge Tue Jun 06, 2017 09:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1006560)
So, if Team A is entitled to run the end line, we are going to allow B1 to kneel down OOB and prevent A1 from running the end line? We are going to call that incidental contact if A1 trips over B1?

Well that is pretty simple. That would be an intentional foul for the contact alone. We might have a delay before if possible and maybe a technical if there was a previous delay recorded. I do not think that situation would apply here in the way it has been discussed.

Peace

Raymond Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1006561)
Well that is pretty simple. That would be an intentional foul for the contact alone. We might have a delay before if possible and maybe a technical if there was a previous delay recorded. I do not think that situation would apply here in the way it has been discussed.

Peace

It seems a couple of posters are saying that a player kneeling OOB, tying his shoes, should not be liable for any contact with the thrower-in.

deecee Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1006572)
It seems a couple of posters are saying that a player kneeling OOB, tying his shoes, should not be liable for any contact with the thrower-in.

This falls in the "common" sense bucket. A player kneeling to tie his shoes is different than say a player kneeling to say 5 hail marys. It's basketball and sometimes shoes get untied. It's VERY rare when in a varsity or higher contest a player will STOP to tie their shoelaces. you are more likely going to get a player just take their shoe off and chuck if to the side of the court and out of the way. This may happen at the middle school or younger level if ever.

I'm not calling a foul unless one is necessary but then your options are not a common foul in this scenario. It's a real cluster @#$@.

bucky Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:57am

I was having the player kneel simply as part of the story. He could very well have been standing but I wanted to give a reason for not exactly going IB immediately.

Indeed, most players won't stop and indeed, if they are kneeling, the inbounder isn't going to run into them and indeed it would happen at lower levels and indeed it would be handled accordingly and indeed.... Good points by all.

If an inbounder intentionally ran into the kneeling/standing player, my gut would be a no-call or offensive foul, depending on actual actions.

deecee Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1006574)
I was having the player kneel simply as part of the story. He could very well have been standing but I wanted to give a reason for not exactly going IB immediately.

Indeed, most players won't stop and indeed, if they are kneeling, the inbounder isn't going to run into them and indeed it would happen at lower levels and indeed it would be handled accordingly and indeed.... Good points by all.

If an inbounder intentionally ran into the kneeling/standing player, my gut would be a no-call or offensive foul, depending on actual actions.

What would your rationale and/or rule support be for a offensive foul?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1