Fun With Nothing ...

BillyMac · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 31, 2021, 11:33pm

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.

bob jenkins · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 01, 2021, 06:14am

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

JRutledge · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 01, 2021, 09:55am

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

BillyMac · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 01, 2021, 10:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Offensive initiated contact ... 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 ...

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.

Camron Rust · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 01, 2021, 12:08pm

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.

BillyMac · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 04, 2021, 09:48am

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%.