Fun With Legal Guarding Position ...
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

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

Is this a block or a charge? Observe the play and make a decision as to what type of foul is committed on this play.

Two choices: This is a blocking foul. This is a player control foul.

My comment: This is a player control foul. Blue #30 had legal guarding position and White #20 used his right arm and shoulder to push Blue #30 in the torso and displace Blue #30. Did White #20 travel as he started his dribble drive?

PC. No travel -- but the little hesitation did make that thought enter my mind.

Too Close To Call, So Don't Call It ...
 

If by, "No travel", you meant, "Too close to call, so don't call it", I agree.

After the same "thought enter(ed) my mind", I replayed the video at 1/4 speed (only available to IAABO members).

Endline angle. White #20 catches the ball with only his right foot on the floor and his left foot in the air, and then puts his left foot on the floor, making his right foot his pivot foot. He then lifts his right (pivot) foot before releasing the ball to start a dribble. Travel.

But again, this was at 1/4 speed and was replayed multiple times. If it's too close to call, don't call it.

PC foul. The defender even stops moving and gets run over. This is one of the easier ones based on the endline angle. The Center guessed.

Peace

Travel was the first thing I thought. Replay shows that he lifts his right pivot foot before releasing the dribble.

Contact is definitely a PC.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Train Wreck ...
 

Locally, we've been taught that when there's a train wreck, and when a call just has has to made, and when one is ill-prepared to make that call (for whatever reason, sudden surprise, bad angle, straight-lined, out of position, etc.), if there's contact on the defender's torso (as in this video), to make an educated guess and err on the side of calling a player control foul.

I did not say to not make a call, but we default too often to the defender who did something wrong. This is a clear PC foul from the end-line look. That is not the look he had as the Center. And because he did not position adjust, he really did not see the play clearly. He was straight-lined. And as a philosophy when I have doubt, I am calling a PC foul because to me it cleans up your game better than calling a block. Then the offensive players think they can go into defenders no matter what and get calls. Again, just my opinion.

Peace

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.

Default Guess ...
 

Agree.

If I'm ill-prepared to make a train wreck call that absolutely has to be made (too much contact and can't pass with a no call), ill-prepared for whatever reason, sudden surprise, bad angle, straight-lined, out of position, bad partner (swallows whistle), partner out of position, sun in eyes through a gym window (we actually have a gym with this problem), etc.), and if I also fail (for the same reasons above) to see contact/no contact on the defender's torso (not even getting a little peek at our usual best guess "rule of thumb" clue, contact on torso), my default guess call with players on the floor and with me having absolutely no clue as to how they got there, right, or wrong, is a block.

Only happens once, or twice, a year, if that, but some plays require a whistle because a no-call (no guess) in such plays would only encourage subsequent rough play.

... otherwise (no contact on the defender's torso, or can't observe contact/no contact on the defender's torso) I rule (guess) a block.

All by local custom.

Block Guess ...
 

In block/charge situations, when we have players on the floor and we have absolutely no clue as to how they got there, I wonder if there is a statistically better guess, block, or charge?

In millions of block/charge situations over the years that have been correctly adjudicated, are defenders more likely to illegally contact ball handlers, or are ball handlers more likely to illegally contact defenders?

Can't answer more blocks in a game than charges because some blocks may not be in a block/charge situation (illegal screens).

I think that you can see where I'm going with this. Our local custom in block/charge situations, when we have players on the floor and we have absolutely no clue as to how they got there, and haven't observed contact, or no contact, on the defender's torso, and can't pass with a no-call because it would encourage subsequent rough play, we locally default to block.

Are we more likely to be correct, or incorrect, with the "blind" block guess?

Of course, it's always better to anticipate the play, know the rules, and be in the best position to make the correct call, but "stuff" happens, and sometimes the "train wreck" whistle has to be sounded, followed by a "blind" guess.

You have absolutely no clue how players got to the floor and you are willing to indiscriminately give a player their 5th foul?

If I have no clue what happened, I'm not calling anything and telling the coaches I totally missed what happened. If I saw parts of the play or saw it late, I'm using context clues such as how the defender fell or if the offensive player had changed his path, etc. to help determine which way I'm guessing.

Context Clues ...
 

Good point.

Our local interpreter (as well as all past local interpreters) is vehemently adamant that we have to put a whistle on these train wreck plays, even if we have to guess.

Totally agree, but this isn't flying "blind", but an educated guess based on observations.

Apart from theory, in real games, I doubt that any of us, no matter what the situation is, no matter how badly out of position we are, no matter how surprised we are, no matter how bad our partner is, are completely oblivious ("blind") to some sort of a context clue.

If I have no idea what happened, I rule nothing. If it was close, and someone definitely fouled, I err on the side of calling a charge, because it is more likely that the offensive player did something illegal in colliding with a legal defender than that an otherwise-legal defender did something illegal that would make the play a block. If there's a flop, then it is an entirely different story.

"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.

That makes sense, because it is possible for players to trip and fall on their own, or for players to incidentally contact each other and fall down.

No Illegal Contact In Block/Charge ???
 

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.

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%.

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 ???
 

Why is Albert Einstein posting under crosscountry55's username?

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 ...
 

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.