Fun With A Pass And Crash …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...O0M%2F5w%3D%3D

Is this a Block, Player Control, Charge or No Call Correct? Observe the play and make a decision as to whether this should have been ruled a Block, Player Control, Charge or is it a No Call Correct? Who is responsible for making a judgment on this play - the Center or the Lead? Can the Trail help on this play?

Five choices: This is Player Control foul. This is a Blocking foul. This is a Flop. This is incidental contact (NCC - No Call Correct). This is a Charge.

My comment: This is a Charge. Ball handler Blue #10 releases the ball on a pass and then charges into White #1 who had legal guarding position. Team control foul.

[BillyMac]

If one believed that this was a player control foul then one could have answered either player control foul, or charge.

I was initially perplexed by two of the five choices. While I realize that not all player control fouls are charges, it is possible for a player control foul to also be a charge.

Answers could have been presented in a better manner, but after viewing the video one will see why the answers were offered in this manner.

It was this apparent redundant answer that gave me a clue regarding the correct answer before actually viewing the video.

Maybe IAABO wants to highlight that while all player control fouls are team control fouls the reverse is not always true (all team control fouls are not always player control fouls).

A few early returns from IAABO members who have already commented show that a few are confused by this principle.

Maybe IAABO is getting us ready for a possible player control foul signal change by the NFHS.

[todd66]

team control foul. There is no player control during a pass (NFHS 4-12-2b)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by todd66

team control foul. There is no player control during a pass (NFHS 4-12-2b)

Not a choice, no "team control foul" bubble to fill in on the slightly confusing IAABO multiple choice answer sheet, but I fully agree with you. Nice citation to piggy back with 4-12-1 (from a negative prospective).

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If one believed that this was a player control foul then one could have answered either player control foul, or charge.

Good citation if you are teaching test taking skills.

But since 17% of IAABO officials will think this *is* a PC foul despite the pass, it needs to be a choice.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Good citation if you are teaching test taking skills. But since 17% of IAABO officials will think this is a PC foul despite the pass, it needs to be a choice.

Every year that I taught I gave a lesson on how to make educated guesses when one didn't actually know the correct answer on my multiple choice and matching science unit tests questions. One suggestion was to ask oneself, "Why shouldn't I answer with this choice?", thus narrowing down one's choices (guesses), thus improving one's chances of a correct guess. If the test is asking for name of a scientist, be sure to answer with a name, not something else, like "stalagmite". I wanted my students to learn that there were "bad wrong answers" and "good wrong answers". It's science, a scientific hypothesis is no more than an educated guess.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A few early returns from IAABO members who have already commented show that a few are confused by this principle.

Let's see if the 17% prediction holds up. I hope that 17% is too high (I'm a rose colored glasses kind of guy), but it might be a good over/under.

[Raymond]

Based on this camera angle, I can't tell if the defender's last movement was legal.

I do know that was terrible court coverage. Lead needed to pinch the paint and rotate. Center takes himself out of the play.

Because of the terrible mechanics, we don't know if they passed because of their judgment or passed because they really couldn't see the play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Based on this camera angle, I can't tell if the defender's last movement was legal.

Are you saying that White #1 took away airborne Blue #10's landing spot?

If so, you are correct about the camera angle, we can't see if Blue #10 is actually still airborne at contact, or if his right foot hits the floor before the contact.

However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact, or if his right foot hit the floor before the contact, and I don't need a better camera angle (although a different angle is always nice to have).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact....

So a defender can move any way he wants to AFTER A1 becomes airborne as long as he was legal BEFORE A1 became airborne?

But again, the judgment part of this play is a mouse compared to the elephant of poor mechanics.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne ...

Originally Posted by Raymond

So a defender can move any way he wants to after A1 becomes airborne as long as he was legal before A1 became airborne?

Great point, that I believed that I had already answered, but without specifics. By maintaining legal guard position I meant that the defender didn't move toward the airborne ball handler.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... the judgment part of this play is a mouse compared to the elephant of poor mechanics.

I appreciate your comments regarding the mechanics of the play.

Originally Posted by Raymond

I do know that was terrible court coverage. Lead needed to pinch the paint and rotate. Center takes himself out of the play

With only two real three person games in forty years under my black belt, I wasn't about to offer an opinion on the mechanics as requested by IAABO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So a defender can move any way he wants to AFTER A1 becomes airborne as long as he was legal BEFORE A1 became airborne?

But again, the judgment part of this play is a mouse compared to the elephant of poor mechanics.

Not any way, but several ways.

Nothing in the rules says that the defender has to be stationary, even for an airborne opponent. The rules only require that the defender be in the path. If the defender was in the path when A1 became airborne, any subsequent lateral movement or movement backwards doesn't change that. That is just a position adjustment.

There is no change in the ruling if the defender moves from a position that would have lead to contact 3" left of the center of his/her torso to a position with contact 3" right of the center of his/her torso. If the defender was in position to take the charge before the opponent jump, small movements don't usually change that.

The defender can't, however, move toward the opponent into contact as that negates LGP.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great point, that I believed that I had already answered, but without specifics. By maintaining legal guard position I meant that the defender didn't move toward the airborne ball handler.

....

Words matter

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Words matter

Agree. Yes they do. I thought that "obtained and maintained" covered it.

While not incorrect, it was, perhaps, too general a statement, one that needed further explanation, and I was happy to oblige for the greater good of the cause.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. Yes they do. I thought that "obtained and maintained" covered it.

While not incorrect, it was, perhaps, too general a statement, one that needed further explanation, and I was happy to oblige for the greater good of the cause.

You used "obtained and maintained" specifically in regards to what happened before A1 went airborne and then used words like "it doesn't matter" in regards to what happens before the contact.


"However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact...."

Me, if I'm training someone, I say defender "obtained" LGP BEFORE A1 went airborne and MAINTAINED LGP while A1 was airborne and until contact.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I say defender "obtained" LGP before A1 went airborne and maintained LGP while A1 was airborne and until contact.

And you would be saying it correctly.

My initial answer was unclear.

While I knew what I meant, I didn't write what I meant.

Haste makes waste.

Thanks for the correction/clarification, for me, and for the greater good of the Forum cause.