NCAA-W restricted area and retreating
 

NCAA-W rule set. 10-4-7

Fast break. B1 establishes "initial legal guarding position" 1 step outside the restricted area (arc).

PRIOR to contact, B1 takes a legal step backwards and A1 makes contact while B1 is now in the arc.

Automatic block? Or can B1 retreat after establishing and PC against A1 is possible?

I thought I remembered that B1 could retreat, but I did not find it in the case book. Did I miss remember, or is it an interpretation somewhere?

The key to the question is initial legal guarding position.

Initial is what matters.

It would be a legal action in any code with a restricted area, because initial LGP (2 feet on the floor, inbounds, facing the opponent) was established outside the restricting area, and legal guarding position was maintained with legal movement backwards. This is not the play which the restricted area is designed to prevent, which is the defensive player establishing initial guarding position under the basket to prevent a driving player from scoring.

Not that anyone else cares BUT in FIBA this would not be legal. If the player is contacting the circle and the offensive player goes airborne before contact occurs this does not have to be a block but it cannot be a charge.

Interesting, that a difference would exist there between the FIBA and US interpretations of the restricted area (no-charge semicircle) rule. What is the specific rulebook or interpretation entry for this example (retreating into the semicircle)? I'm curious, and I'd like to understand the logic behind FIBA's interpretation of this rule.

There are many differences. The main one being that there is no distinction in the primary or help defender in regards to the no charge circle in FIBA. Its just an area where you can't draw charges, there no automatic blocks just can't draw a charge within that area with proximity to the rim.

On any penetration play into the no-charge semi-circle area any contact caused by an airborne offensive player with a defensive player inside the no-charge semi-circle shall not be called as an offensive foul, unless the offensive player is illegally using his hands, arms, legs or body. This rule applies when
 the offensive player is in control of the ball whilst airborne, and
 he attempts a shot for a field goal or passes off the ball, and
 the defensive player has one foot or both feet in contact with the no-charge
semi-circle area.

Doesn't this phrase undo what they're apparently trying to do? Isn't knocking someone out of the way with your body illegally using your body?

Agreed the phrasing is not great. But its intended to mean pushing off with arm or legs or clearing someone out with your butt etc. You can't get called for a charge , however they needed some protection for defenders from players intentionally clearing someone out by pushing off.

It appears that the US interpretation of the restricted area is more relative as opposed to the absolute interpretation of FIBA, because the restricted area only applies to secondary defenders in NCAAM, and there are additional conditions in NCAAW and NBA play.

FIBA: Defender in restricted area = no charge, unless offensive player clears out/unnatural body contact
US: Secondary defender in restricted area = no charge unless FIBA conditions (NBA and NCAAW add unless offensive player starts drive in the lower defensive box (area between 3' outside the lane and 2nd lane space)) are met.

I much prefer the US rule here.

In FIBA, if you can get your defender to shift a little and step on the arc, you then have license to run through them. Doesn't seem right or fair to a defender, particularly if they're being backed down by a big post player....but it sure increases points.