Fun With Nothing ...
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

Verticality - Was this contact properly ruled to be legal? A dribbler enters the lane and contact ensues on the defender. Was there a foul on this play or was contact properly ruled incidental?

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...Lf88WbaxCB.mp4

Three choices: This is a defensive foul. This is a player control foul. This is incidental contact (no foul).

My comment: This is incidental contact (no foul). Defender moved straight up and down. Shooter did not displace defender. Little contact initiated by either player.

Legal, form the camera's (similar to Trail's) perspective. L should have closed down to have a better look at Red's movement.

Offensive initiated contact.

A good sign is when the shooter double clutches without any play on the ball by the defender to get the contact and fool the official in calling a foul.

Leave this mess alone.

Peace

April Fool's Day ...
 

Agree. Spotted the same myself and decided to pass on a player control foul because the little contact didn't displace the defender.

Looked like the defender was in deep foul trouble. He didn't really try to swat the shot away despite having a great height advantage and stood his ground like the Rock of Gibraltar.

Legal....defender had LGP and was in the path of the shooter when the shooter jumped. The defender was still moving laterally after the shooter jumped but, since the defender was already in the path, the movement was legal....just a minor position adjustment that had no impact on the contact that shifted the point of contact from one point on the defender's chest to another.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...Lf88WbaxCB.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is incidental contact (no foul).

White #44 drives the lane when a secondary defender in red attempts steps into his path to defend the try. The defender does momentarily obtain Legal Guarding Position (LGP) by getting in the opponent's path with both feet on the floor (with a wide stance) and facing the ball handler before he elevated to attempt the try. (4-23) The defender does slide his left foot over after the shooter elevates, which many believe means the defender is no longer in LGP.

In this play, The Lead official is in an excellent position to view the contact and rules the contact to be incidental. By rule, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental. (4-27) 79.6% of respondents agree with the ruling by the Lead official.

There is an interesting aspect of this play that has caused some debate among clinicians over the years. After the ball handler jumps, the defender does move his left foot and is in a more vertical position when the contact ensues. His torso remains in the path of the ball handler, but does the fact that a defender moved a foot to get in a more vertical position before contact constitute moving to a "new spot" and negate the Legal Guarding Position? For 15% of respondents, this movement is to a "new spot" on the floor and therefore charge the defender with a blocking foul.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is incidental contact (no foul) 79% (including me). This is a defensive foul 15%. This is a player control foul 5%.

Oh, but the defender wasn't set!!! ;)

Of course he wasn't. He doesn't have to be.

This is a perfect example of a defender having and maintaining LGP while also continuing to move after the opponent was airborne. He was in the path before the shooter jumped and his movement only adjusted his position within the path.

He Wasn’t Set ...
 

From Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

“He wasn’t set”, is often an official’s answer to a coach who is questioning a blocking foul on his player. This implies that a defensive player must be set, and can’t move, to take a charge, while, in reality, the rules say otherwise. A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he, or she, has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards, or sideways, to maintain a legal guarding position, and may even have one, or both feet, off the floor when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. However, if the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which, in this case, is a blocking foul.

From The Most Misunderstood NFHS Basketball Rules list:

A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away, or duck, to absorb contact, provided the defender has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court, and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards, or sideways, to maintain a legal guarding position, and may even have one or both feet off the floor when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. If the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which is a blocking foul. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the defender must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.