I was watching two other officials working a tournament last night and on two seperate occasions had B players who were standing in the lane get knocked down by Player A who came dribbling down the lane and while trying to get by them knocked the B player down. Player A got his head and shoulders past B as he tried to slip by but initiated the contact. The officials called a block in both cases. To me the only thing good about this call is that they were consistant. If player A tries to change direction that is not B's fault?

I was not there to see the play you described, but just because A1 was able to get his head and shoulders past B1 does not absolve him from making illegal contact against B1. B1 had obtained a legal guarding position and was not moving at the time of the contact.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Mark, but how do you reconcile your statement with NCAA 10-21.2: "When a dribbler, without contact, passes an opponent sufficiently to have head and shoulders beyond the front of the opponent’s torso, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact shall be that of the opponent."

NFHS Rule 10-6-2 basically uses the exact same language.

Greater responsibility.

That doesn't mean the foul is automatically charged to the defensive player. In this case, assuming A1 clearly initiated contact, you can have a player control (team control in NCAA) foul.

I'm not sure what you mean by A1 clearly initiating contact but I can't imagine what contact (within reason) A1 can initiate that would put B1 at a disadvantage in this play. Almost always B1 will shift his position once A1 gets by him, and certainly in that case he's responsible for the contact. So, IMO these plays are either block or no-call.

And FWIW, under NCAA there is still a PC foul. Just so happens that any PC foul is also a team control foul.

The key to this play is how one answers the questioin in the following situation: B1 has obtained (NFHS)/established (NFHS & FIBA) legal guarding position against A1. B1 maintains his/her verticality. There is contact between A1 and B1. Who is responsible for the contact?

The only logical conclusion to this situation is that either A1 has committed a foul or the contact is incidental. If the contact displaces B1, then the contact is not incidental and A1 is guilty of illegal contact.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Jan 28th, 2004 at 07:58 PM]

How do you know that B1 maintained his/her verticality?

Because I observed the play and B1 maintained his/her verticiality.

MTD, Sr.

You observed the play? Didn't you say in your first post above "I <b>wasn't</b> there to <b>see</b> the play you described".

Unbelievable!

Read my post of Jan. 28, 2004, 07:55pm. I described a very common play that occurs all of the time. Not the play that was described in the original post even though it is very similar to the play that I described in my post.

MTD, Sr.

In the original play, the poster indicates that A1 changed direction after getting his head and shoulders past B1. If he changes direction and initiates contact with B1, couldn't that be a PC foul?

I'm guessing that MTDSr. had a similar play on December 17, 1954, and that's how he's basing his explanation. Of course, the ball was tossed into the peach basket, and he had to go grab the broomstick to pop it back out, but that's another story. ;)

Just kidding. Carry on all.

Exactly! It's <b>not</b> the play that was described in the original post of DJ's. It's also not "very similar" to the original post because verticality was never mentioned in DJ's post.You made up your own situation, and then tried to use <b>your</b> situation to justify making a PC foul call in a <b>different</b> situation. That's not a very logical way to argue your position, Mark.

It could be, or couldn't be. Imo, there's not really enough information there to say for sure either way. I think that this is one of those plays that you have to see before you can give a definite response either way. DJ is probably the only one here who has a good idea of what the call really should have been.