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.

The point that I am trying to make is that while the rules talk about the dribbler (A1) getting his/her head and shoulders past the defender (B1) still does not mean that any and all contact should be charged against B1. If B1 moves into A1 after A1 gets his/her head and shoulders past B1 then B1 should be charged with a blocking foul; if B1 moves straight back or away from A1 and contact still occurs, then it is possible that A1 could be charged with the contact or no foul should be charged to either A1 or B1.

If B1 does what I have described in my post of Jan. 28, 2004, 07:55pm, it would be very difficult to charge B1 with a foul. One of the fundamentals of basketball is that if B1 has obtained/estalished a legal guarding position, is not moving, and is maintaing his/her verticality, then B1 cannot be guilty of a foul if there is contact between B1 and a moving A1.

Mark, your points above are well-taken. I also agree with them.

My point was that you did not have the information contained in your summary above to make your original definitive response to DJ's initial post. The defender's verticality was the key information that was missing.

Dec 17 was a Sunday in 1954. They didn't play on Sundays back then.

situation
 

During the plays that I talked about in my original post, B1 had established a stationary legal guarding position just below the free throw line when A1 dribbled up to B1 made initial contact but not enough to warrant a foul and then tried to duck under B1and got his head and shoulders past the defender and then caused B1 to fall to the floor. The officials called this a block twice during the same game and like I said the only good thing about this call in my opinion is they were consistant. Not right but consistant! To me this is a player control foul because even though A1 got his head and shoulders past B1, A1 caused the contact and put B1 at a disadvantage when B1 had established that spot in a legal way. The reason that I posted this play because I think that it is another case of some officials giving the benefit of the doubt to the person with the ball. It is a common mistake that some officials make and we do not reward good defensive play. I am as guilty as anyone but have become less guilty as I have matured as an official.

Re: situation
 

What do you mean "duck under"?

If he "ducked under" B1 doesn't that say something about B1's lack of verticality?

Description
 

He tried to side step/duck under the defender who had stopped his progress to the basket. Sorry that's the best that I can do without a video!!

Consider the following two situations:

1) Dribbler A1 contacts guard B1, with contact on B1's torso.
2) Dribbler A1 gets head and shoulders past guard B1, then contact occurs.

In both situations, if B1 has not established LGP, we have a block on B1. In both situations, if B1 does not maintain verticality, which causes the contact, we have a block (or hold or some other foul) on B1.

OK, now what if B1 establishes LGP and maintains verticality? Do we have a charge in both situations? If so, what's the point of the "greater responsibility" statement that applies to situation 2 but not situation 1?

I guess my question is, what actions by B1 will lead to a different call (or no call) in these two situations?

(In both plays, assume LGP to start)

1) A1 tries to go around B1. B1 moves to maintain position, and is still movign when contact is made on the torso. Charge.

2) A1 tries to go around B1. B1 moves to maintain position, but A1 gets head and shoulders past B1. B1 is still moving when contact is made. Block.