The Official Forum - Fun With Legal Guarding Position ...

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Fun With Legal Guarding Position ... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/105404-fun-legal-guarding-position.html)

No Illegal Contact In Block/Charge ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1043001)

"Bodies on the floor, we need to have something" is one of those overused, nonsensical philosophies that make me cringe whenever I hear it in a pregame.

In general? Sure. Agree.

But even for a block/charge situation?

I guess one can have a block/charge contact situation end up with two players on the floor with no illegal contact. But it's probably very rare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1043001)

"Bodies on the floor, we need to have something" is one of those overused, nonsensical philosophies that make me cringe whenever I hear it in a pregame.

Agree. I too cringe when I hear it.

I say that when there are two bodies down, you better know how they got there so you can make the right decision (which could be no call).

IAABO Survey Says …

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

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...Oom8K4YtrW.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary

Correct Answer: This is a player control foul.

This is an outstanding discussion play to outline the important aspects of the rules surrounding blocking, charging, and legal guarding position. Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. (4-23-1) When talking to officials about legal guarding, they are very quick to point out there are two primary elements to LGP (1. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court, 2. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.) But we cannot forget about the path of the offensive player.

So does the defender obtain a legal guarding position? The answer is yes. When the offensive player catches the ball and faces the lane, the defender is directly in front of the ball handler with two feet on the floor and facing. Then the dribbler attempts to dribble around the defender and make a move toward the endline. In other words, the "path" has now changed. Now legal guarding moves from the "obtaining" mode to the "maintaining" mode. If the defender wants to maintain his LGP, he may move laterally or obliquely in an attempt to "stay in the path" of the ball handler. However, the defender may not be moving toward the opponent when contact occurs. (4-23-3c)

As it often does, plays such as this come down to did the dribbler get head and shoulders past the defender. If a dribbler can get his head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent. (10-7-8) From the sideline view of the play, it does appear the defender successfully gets both feet in the path of the dribbler with a wide stance when the dribbler's right shoulder contacts the defender in the torso area. From the endline view, you can see the dribbler's head, but not his shoulders, get in advance of the defender's torso as contact occurs. Also, it does not appear the defender is moving forward from this angle but is actually stationary when the contact occurs.

Based on these factors, this would be considered a player control foul. This can be a challenging play. When ruling on dribbler/defender contact, the head and shoulders concept can really help simplify the ruling for officials. Look and see where the contact is committed. If the ball handler did not get head and shoulders by the defender when contact occurred, there is a high probability the defender was successful in getting into the path to obtain or maintain LGP.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a player control foul 78% (including me). This is a blocking foul 22%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy (Post 1042986)

I thought it was a block from the first look. It looked like a bit of a hip thrust to initiate contact.

The endline angle proves that wrong. Easy PC from that look.

I thought the same thing. Relative motion can be deceptive. When the offensive player is moving much faster than the retreating or stationary defender, it can make it appear as though the defender was moving toward the offensive player at contact.

This is something I’ve worked to become much more mindful of in recent seasons, and something I review on video. It has helped a lot.

I think this is also part of the reason loud mouths like Jay Bilas think officials call too many PC fouls. To ignorant announcers, they don’t “look” like PC fouls.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Special Relativity Or General Relativity ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1043059)

Relative motion can be deceptive.

Why is Albert Einstein posting under crosscountry55's username?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1043059)

In reality, it is almost impossible for a retreating defender to commit a block. Try running backwards without momentarily having both feet on the floor at some point. And, if the defender was retreating, that usually implies they were facing the opponent with the opponent coming at them.

As long as the opponent doesn't get head/shoulders by the defender before contact, it is almost guaranteed that the defender both had LGP and, if they were retreating toward the endline behind them, even if they were also moving sideways, were not moving toward the opponent and legally maintained LGP.

Almost Guaranteed ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1043061)

In reality, it is almost impossible for a retreating defender to commit a block. Try running backwards without momentarily having both feet on the floor at some point. And, if the defender was retreating, that usually implies they were facing the opponent with the opponent coming at them. As long as the opponent doesn't get head/shoulders by the defender before contact, it is almost guaranteed that the defender both had LGP and, if they were retreating toward the endline behind them, even if they were also moving sideways, were not moving toward the opponent and legally maintained LGP.

Good explanation. Thanks.

Posts like this are why the Forum can be a great resource for inexperienced (or even experienced) officials.

Young'uns and whippersnappers should pay close attention.