Legal Guarding position or Blocking Foul? (Video)

[JRutledge]

The defender clearly got in front of the cutter/ball handler. Now in live time this was very close. But his feet are both "set" which is not a requirement and not sure what his torso has to do when both your feet are planted in the ground?

This to me was a charge all the way. I think the lead rotated last and did not see the defender clearly and defaulted and called a foul on the defender as we tend to do.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The defender clearly got in front of the cutter/ball handler. Now in live time this was very close. But his feet are both "set" which is not a requirement and not sure what his torso has to do when both your feet are planted in the ground?

Peace

Both feet must be on the floor to obtain LGP...you know that. The player must also be in the path...that means torso in the path, not the feet. The space occupied is defined by the body (torso). The feet being down defines the time that the position of the body becomes legal. It does not allow the body to continue to move to a new space if it is too late to do so.

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.....

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.

By rule, the player is only legally occupying the space their body is in when the feet come down. They do not legally occupy the space over the feet without the body being over them.

[JRutledge]

It would be one thing if he was leaning all the way over to make contact, but that is not what happened. It sounds like you are trying to require that he is totally still before any contact takes place. Sorry, but that is not how I read the rules on this situation.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

Would this be a block of the "straight block" variety or of the "block-point" (block because of restricted area) variety? I would have either, because the defender's right foot is in the restricted area when he is trying to establish position on the offensive player. I also have the defender failing to beat the offensive player to the spot before the offensive player goes airborne. Thus, I cannot call this play a charge.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... I would have either, because the defender's right foot is in the restricted area when he is trying to establish position on the offensive player...

You must be watching this on a phone, because on my 19" desktop monitor the defender is clearly outside of the RA.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You must be watching this on a phone, because on my 19" desktop monitor the defender is clearly outside of the RA.

I was watching the video on a laptop, and I had the defender in the RA (the "on or over" language comes to mind). Even if he were not in the RA, the defender still failed to beat the offensive player to the spot prior to the offensive player going airborne, so there would be a block anyway.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I was watching the video on a laptop, and I had the defender in the RA (the "on or over" language comes to mind). Even if he were not in the RA, the defender still failed to beat the offensive player to the spot prior to the offensive player going airborne, so there would be a block anyway.

He's not in the RA, and if you went to the monitor to review this play you would be getting it wrong by saying he's in the RA.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It would be one thing if he was leaning all the way over to make contact, but that is not what happened. It sounds like you are trying to require that he is totally still before any contact takes place. Sorry, but that is not how I read the rules on this situation.

Peace

Nah, I don't care if he is still or not, but I want the body to be in the path before the shooter jumps as is required by the rule. If the body is still moving sideways or backwards, I don't care, I'll still have a PC if the body got into the path in time. Otherwise the defender has not met the requirements of LGP and I'm not fudging the requirements to favor a defender that is late if it means calling a charge instead. However, if it is an option, I might pass on the contact.

[CJP]

Punch it. PC.

[#olderthanilook]

PC. Slo mo confirms.

Extremely difficult play to rule on in real time, though. B1 made an outstanding athletic play to obtain LGP before A1 became an airborne shooter.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

. . .defaulted and called a foul on the defender as we tend to do. Peace

Why do "we" tend to do that? Because still, in spite of the clinical imprecations of J.D. and others for us to go up with a closed-fist stop clock signal first, too many of "we" still impulsively go up with two fists in the air at first contact which is the habitual precursor of the dynamic fist-banging on the hips, thus the default block. The beginning habit compels the end call, regardless the inaccuracy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Why do "we" tend to do that? Because still, in spite of the clinical imprecations of J.D. and others for us to go up with a closed-fist stop clock signal first, too many of "we" still impulsively go up with two fists in the air at first contact which is the habitual precursor of the dynamic fist-banging on the hips, thus the default block. The beginning habit compels the end call, regardless the inaccuracy.

I cannot explain why other people do this, but I think it is easier to justify a blocking foul because most people do not understand the rule. And I am not talking about the officials. I am talking about the coaches and players and even fans. Usually, PC fouls are more controversial in nature. You get all kinds of comments as if to suggest there is no way you could have called a PC foul, even though all the rules requirements are met. Even Camaron's position to me is part of the problem. Because he is asking for the defender to be damn near perfect in order to have a PC foul when the rules and even the administrators like JD are clearly saying things like this should be called a PC foul. No one made a stink over this call when the officials called this foul. It would have been minutes of Bilas going on and on about how that is not a PC foul and how the NCAA needs to address the issue over what appears to many her as a clear PC foul.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Why do "we" tend to do that? Because still, in spite of the clinical imprecations of J.D. and others for us to go up with a closed-fist stop clock signal first, too many of "we" still impulsively go up with two fists in the air at first contact which is the habitual precursor of the dynamic fist-banging on the hips, thus the default block. The beginning habit compels the end call, regardless the inaccuracy.

Most of the officials who go directly to pounding their hips are veteran, established officials--at the college and HS levels.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The defender clearly got in front of the cutter/ball handler. Now in live time this was very close. But his feet are both "set" which is not a requirement and not sure what his torso has to do when both your feet are planted in the ground?

This to me was a charge all the way. I think the lead rotated last and did not see the defender clearly and defaulted and called a foul on the defender as we tend to do.
Peace

*Very astute point being made here--and I dare say that this tendency will be extremely difficult [if not impossible] to dis-embed from the collective thought-process.