Block - Charge (consider this)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by footlocker

NFHS rule 10-6-2- "a dribbler shall not charge into or contact an opponent in his/her path...". There's no mention of LGP being needed. As Chuck stated before, LGP only comes into play if the defender moves from the spot that he/she has legally obtained.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 11th, 2004 at 10:21 AM]

Jurassic, I like this post.

Am I understanding that by this rule: if a dribbler does charge into or contact an opponent in his/her path the foul would always be on the dribbler? What about a moving opponent facing the dribbler that never established LGP? Certainly that rule does not indicate that the contact shall be interpreted as a charge.

I can live with player control even though defender B never established LGP. But want to make sure I got it right and by into it. [/QUOTE]

the part of the rule that reads "in his/her path" means that the defneder got there legally -- either by not moving, or by establishing and maintaining LGP

[Illini_Ref]

The rule book makes clear that an opponent who jumps into the path of a dribbler needs to gain LGP. However, if the play lacks the defender moving into the path of the dribbler, then no LGP needs to be gained.

If I'm on defense and standing anywhere, the dribbler cannot just run me over just because I am not facing him. No if I move to get in his path, then I have a burden to gain LGP.

In the original situation, I have no trouble calling a PC, waiving off the hot, and going long. It is essentially the same concept as a push (over the back) except the fouler has the ball, making it a PC foul.


Here is a new twist. A1 goes over the back of B1 making contact. While in the air he taps the missed shot in. Do you call a PC foul, and wave off the basket, and shoot no free throws. Or do you call a pushing foul, wave of the basket and shoot bonus(if it applies)?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Can't agree with that, Juulie.

Rule4-7-1- "Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball".

Rule 4-7-2- "Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponent's torso".

The play above meets those definitions, imo. In R4-7-2(d), it doesn't say that the opponent's torso has to be facing the dribbler.

You're right about the definitions, but when refs talk about "block/charge" we're talking about a specific situation that is in no way covered by those definitions. Nothing in those definitions talks about a dribbler or about LGP, which are the crucial points in what we call "block/charge". It seems to me that the situation footlocker drscribed isn't a "block/charge" play, and that other rules, such as the one Chuck cited, and the one I think is there, although I can't find it, are more relevant.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by rainmaker
... and that other rules, such as the one Chuck cited, and the one I think is there, although I can't find it...

Okay, I found it, here it is: 10-6-3d

"When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his/her opponent."

Okay, footlocker's B team player wasn't "moving", but I think the principle can still be applied.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Okay, I found it, here it is: 10-6-3d

"When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his/her opponent."

Okay, footlocker's B team player wasn't "moving", but I think the principle can still be applied.

Good cite, but isn't this still a block/charge situation, by definition?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Good cite, but isn't this still a block/charge situation, by definition?

Well, not the way I use "block/charge" but I'm not always right on these things. But, you and I aren't disagreeing in substance, are we? We'd both call footlocker's original sitch a PC, right?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

Well, not the way I use "block/charge" but I'm not always right on these things. But, you and I aren't disagreeing in substance, are we? We'd both call footlocker's original sitch a PC, right?
[/B][/QUOTE]We agree on the call. We don't agree on the terminology of the call. What signal would you use,Juulie, for calls on either the offensive or defensive player in this sitch?

Btw, if the call's right, whothehell cares anyway?

[rockyroad]

[i]
"When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible if contact is made because the player in front slows up or stops and the player behind overruns his/her opponent."

Okay, footlocker's B team player wasn't "moving", but I think the principle can still be applied. [/B]

So Juulie, if the player behind was dribbling the ball and ran over the player in front, what would you call, and what signal would you use? I'm confused as to what exactly your point is here...

[JeffTheRef]

Originally posted by footlocker
This call has nothing to do with moving after legal gaurding position was established. Only thing to consider is can a player without legal gauring postition still take a charge (PCF)?

I would agree with Chuck, the 'right to the spot you're in' is, practically speaking, the general rule, abrogated under special circumstances (guarding a dribbler, screening a moving player, etc.).

The Legal Guarding Position rule focuses in on a very specific interaction (without fully specifying the preconditions), has to do with motion, and has two phases: obtaining and, subsequently, maintaining.

With respect to obtaining position, a block occurs if B(1) moves into dribbler A(1)'s path and fails to get both feet on the ground, torso facing A(1), before contact or before A(1) leaves the floor.

Consider this extreme case. B(1) moves to the foul line at Team A's basket before A(1) crosses half court. B(1) is standing facing A(1)'s basket. A(1) comes down the floor in a straight path and runs directly into B(1). Block?

And another. B(2), who is in proximity to A(1), bounces off B(1) and moves into dribbler A(1)'s path. B(1) is stationary at the time of contact but facing away from A. Block?

And still another. B(1) is guarding A(2). B(2)'s back is towards A(1) who is holding the ball. B(2) is moving when A(1) begins a dribble and makes contact with B(1). Block?

I think the implication of these extremes is that both INTENTION and 'TIME AND DISTANCE' must play a role in characterizing the REAL block/charge.

(The 'maintaining' side of the LGP situation is a lot simpler, and probably adequate.)

[footlocker]

Again, I don't have my books with me but TIME AND DISTANCE do not come into play when a dribbler has the ball. Only time and distance must be established for a player without the ball (screens). Because of this rule, I believe too often we go with the block.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by footlocker
Understand, Player A did not go looking for contact here. Player B intentionally stood in the path of A but chose not to face him.

And because B1 choose to intentionally stand in the path of A1 with his back to him he is now attempting to set a screen against A1. B1 in the play in the starting post for this thread must give time and distance against A1, but never more that two steps. If B1 took his position on the court two or more steps away from A1, then A1 has committed a common foul (charging/pushing), and since A1 has control of the ball the foul by A1 is a player control foul.

MTD, Sr.

[footlocker]

This site is awesome.

I'm a relative newcomer here. The fact that I can discuss at length with so many people with so many years of experience is fnatastic. Ultimately we will all derive our own interpretation of the rules. However, if I ever face these situations in a game I'll be comfortable making the call and will very coherently be able to explain to a coach why the call was made.

[Edited by footlocker on Feb 11th, 2004 at 01:32 PM]

[footlocker]

MTD- disagree, maybe?

Why would player B set a screen against a shooter? This does not make sense to me. Defend a ball handler, not set a screen against?

Second, time and distance don't matter for a player with the ball. The dribbler should be watching where he is going. Time and distance do matter for a player without the ball because they are gaurding someone and deserve the time and space to prepare for and avoid a legal screen. If the screen is set behind them then the distance must be greater because more space is needed to avoid that screen.

In the starting post for this thread B1 has no obligation of time and distance if he has legal guarding position. Are you saying that if he chooses not to have legal guarding position (by not facing his torso to player A) then he must allow time and distance to earn his spot on the floor?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by footlocker
MTD- disagree, maybe?

Why would player B set a screen against a shooter? This does not make sense to me. Defend a ball handler, not set a screen against?

Second, time and distance don't matter for a player with the ball. The dribbler should be watching where he is going. Time and distance do matter for a player without the ball because they are gaurding someone and deserve the time and space to prepare for and avoid a legal screen. If the screen is set behind them then the distance must be greater because more space is needed to avoid that screen.

In the starting post for this thread B1 has no obligation of time and distance if he has legal guarding position. Are you saying that if he chooses not to have legal guarding position (by not facing his torso to player A) then he must allow time and distance to earn his spot on the floor?

1) Only the five players on defense can guard a player whether that player has control of the ball or not.

2) When obtining (NFHS)/establishing (NCAA/FIBA) a legal guarding position, time and distance does not apply to an offensive player in control of the ball as long as the offensive player is not an airborne player at the time that the defensive player attempts to obtain/establish a legal guarding position against the offensive player in control of the ball.

3) When obtining (NFHS)/establishing (NCAA/FIBA) a legal guarding position, time and distance does apply to an offensive player who does not have control of the ball.

4) Any player (offensive, including the player in control of the ball, and defensive) can set screens. When setting screens time and distance are a factor.

You ask the question as to why B1 would set a screen against A1? For the same reason that any player sets a screen against an opponent, to alter the opponents path on the court.

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by footlocker
Understand, Player A did not go looking for contact here. Player B intentionally stood in the path of A but chose not to face him.

Now that's a horse of a different color. If B1's back was to A1 as he went up for the layup how could B1 have intentionally stood in A1's path as he went up for the layup? Sounds like maybe B1 stepped in front of A1 with his back turned to him or turned his back on him after he was set? In that case if A1 was airborne before B1 took his position we have a clear block. But if B1 was stationary through all this then A1 is responsible for illegal contact.