Too Wide ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

B1, standing completely still with his/her knee locked so that his/her leg is in a straight line from ankle joint to hip joint cannot be an infraction of NFHS R4-S23-A1. And has been already stipulated the width of the feet only apply in the Screening Rule.

So a defender who guards an opponent by extending a leg into the path of said opponent (garden variety block/charge play) in this manner (stance wider than shoulder, knees locked, legs straight) at the last "legal" second is legal if contact occurs?

Originally Posted by Raymond

If contact is to a leg that is outside of the vertical plane, I'm calling a trip/block.

4-23-1: ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

So if one gets there "first" (when time and distance is not a factor), it doesn't matter what one's stance is?

2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

Isn't there a difference between a player "passively" and momentarily lying on the floor after falling down, and a defender "actively" (effort) guarding a ball handler by standing in their path in such a manner (stance wider than shoulder, knees locked, legs straight) to misdirect them, or by attempting to "take" a charge?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So a defender who guards an opponent by extending a leg into the path of said opponent (garden variety block/charge play) in this manner (stance wider than shoulder, knees locked, legs straight) at the last "legal" second is legal if contact occurs?





4-23-1: ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

So if one gets there "first" (when time and distance is not a factor), it doesn't matter what one's stance is?

2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

Isn't there a difference between a player "passively" and momentarily lying on the floor after falling down, and a defender "actively" (effort) guarding a ball handler by standing in their path in such a manner (stance wider than shoulder, knees locked, legs straight) to misdirect them, or by attempting to "take" a charge?

Billy:

1) The picture you showed is the stance that the NFHS Softball, NCAA/CCA Softball, and USA Softball Umpiring Manuals want the PU to use. A stance that Mark, Jr., and I have never used and Mark umpires NCAA Div. I softball.

2a) From the Situation that described, if B1 took this stance in Obtaining his LGP and never moved any part of his body, and then A1 while attempting to dribble around B1 tripped over B1's left foot: What question has B1 did that was Illegal?

2b) If B1 moves his left foot out at the last moment and trips A1, then I would agree with you that B1 has most likely committed a Blocking Foul. But the Guarding Rule, unlike the Screening Rule, has no prohibition on how wide a Defender's feet may be when Obtaining a LGP.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

From the Situation that described, if B1 took this stance in Obtaining his LGP and never moved any part of his body, and then A1 while attempting to dribble around B1 tripped over B1's left foot: What question has B1 did that was Illegal?

He extended a "leg into the path of an opponent".

4-23-1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

He extended a "leg into the path of an opponent".

4-23-1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

The verb "extends" implies a movement by B1 into A1 as A1 attempts to dribble by B1. But B1 simply taking the stance as in the picture and never moving his foot, leg, or knee does not meet the criteria of "extends".

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The verb "extends" implies a movement by B1 into A1 as A1 attempts to dribble by B1. But B1 simply taking the stance as in the picture and never moving his foot, leg, or knee does not meet the criteria of "extends".

MTD, Sr.

I absolutely disagree. While the player has LGP to start with, when contact is on the extended leg, LGP is lost...by definition.

"extends" is not a active movement, it is a status. If what you said were actually true, a player could also extend his/her arms out to the side and occupy 10+ feet of width without risk of committing a foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... when contact is on the extended leg, LGP is lost ... by definition.

Agree.

If defender B1 is standing motionless in a "normal" stance (feet about shoulder width apart), and if dribbler A1 dribbles too close to B1 and "trips" over B1's foot, it's not a blocking foul on B1.

If defender B1 is standing motionless in an "extra wide" stance (legs and feet extended) , and if dribbler A1 dribbles too close to B1 and "trips" over B1's foot, it's a blocking foul on B1.

There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping.

[JRutledge]

Well either way, if you make contact with legs that are extended (stationary or moving) then I have a foul all day. If you make contact with the torso and not contact with the legs, I have whatever the play would have been ruled based on LGP and positioning as any other contact play.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well either way, if you make contact with legs that are extended (stationary or moving) then I have a foul all day. If you make contact with the torso and not contact with the legs, I have whatever the play would have been ruled based on LGP and positioning as any other contact play.

Well stated.