| Nevadaref |
Wed Jul 01, 2020 01:33am |
Blocking foul for both of your questions.
In part b, you wrote that the defender attempted to obtain LGP. I understand that as he tried, but was unable to do so prior to the time of contact. The fact that W1 changed his path to a new one prior to contact is not relevant. He could have done so five times and it wouldn’t matter. Only his final path is important. If it isn’t the same as the opponent, then we aren’t governed by the screening rules. Guarding rules are controlling as these final paths converge and a moving defender at the time of contact without LGP is guilty of a blocking foul by rule.
In part c, again the moment that W1 changes direction, he takes on a new path or vector. So he is still “moving in his path” when contact occurs. Don’t get distracted by a red herring here. Changing one’s path isn’t the relevant factor. Neither B1 or W1 are stationary or moving in the same path and direction as the opposing player, so a legal screen is not occurring. Both players are moving so we don’t have to consider the rule about legality occupying a spot on the floor and being displaced. What we have is movement as both players strive to reach a desired location and contact occurs. We need to determine which player is at fault or if it is incidental contact. Incidental contact isn’t appropriate as both players aren’t in equally favorable positions, rather one player is attempting to cut the other one off and prevent him from going to his desired location. So we need to determine if he placed his body in the path of the opponent legally. Without obtaining ILGP, he did not, hence a blocking foul.
|
