an old mental dilemma

[Ralph Stubenthal]

There is a game situation that has always bothered me. It happens in a fast boys game. When a dribbler charges into the paint for a layup and crashes into the chest of a defender with legal guarding position, it is an easy player control call. But, as happened last night, the defender is set up in the paint and not moving. The dribbler charges in and goes to one side enough to get his head and shoulders around the defender before contact occurs. A body on the floor. A call has to be made quickly. I called a block. My "logic" is that the defender never aquired legal guarding position; he never got in front of the defender, facing him, with both feet on the floor. But in reality, he was intitled to the spot he was in because he WAS there first and he never moved. I hope that you can envision the situation I am trying to describe with words. Had the defender lifted a foot off the floor to move in, the call would have been a no brainer, but he never moved a muscle. Had he not ended up on the floor, I would likely have no called it. I have seen this situation many times and I have never been comfortable with it. I am not satisfied that either call-a charge nor a block is a really good call but something had to be called. Can anyone offer any insight regarding this situation.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
There is a game situation that has always bothered me. It happens in a fast boys game. When a dribbler charges into the paint for a layup and crashes into the chest of a defender with legal guarding position, it is an easy player control call. But, as happened last night, the defender is set up in the paint and not moving. The dribbler charges in and goes to one side enough to get his head and shoulders around the defender before contact occurs. A body on the floor. A call has to be made quickly. I called a block. My "logic" is that the defender never aquired legal guarding position; he never got in front of the defender, facing him, with both feet on the floor. But in reality, he was intitled to the spot he was in because he WAS there first and he never moved. I hope that you can envision the situation I am trying to describe with words. Had the defender lifted a foot off the floor to move in, the call would have been a no brainer, but he never moved a muscle. Had he not ended up on the floor, I would likely have no called it. I have seen this situation many times and I have never been comfortable with it. I am not satisfied that either call-a charge nor a block is a really good call but something had to be called. Can anyone offer any insight regarding this situation.

Hmmmm....2 things come to mind -

LGP acquired when the defender has both feet on the playing court facing his opponent. Hard to see how A1 could do what he did without B1 facing him, so more than likely B1 has LGP. Agree?

Once A1 gets head & shoulders by B1 the responsibility for illegal contact shifts to B1. Not completely of course, but worth thinking about.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
...something had to be called.

Why?

[Smitty]

Just because a body ends up on the floor doesn't mean a foul has occurred. Often in plays like these, the player with the ball has to make such an acrobatic move to avoid contact with the defender (or slight contact that's not foul-worthy), he comes down off balance and crashes. Along those same lines, the defender, either anticipating contact or flopping to try and suck you into a charge call, ends up on the floor for no apparent reason. Not all contact is a foul. Not all bodies on the floor got there because of a foul. Kids fall down. They usually get back up. Life goes on.

[Grail]

Just my opinion, (and the way I called it last night). Defender is entitled to the space he is standing in on the floor, regardless of who he is defending. If a player crashes into him, causing displacement or advantage/disadvantage, he cannot be at fault. He has done nothing to initiate the play or the contact. He is legally standing in a position on the floor.

In your case the offensive player "slides" around him, or at least leans his head and shoulders past the defender. Defender still hasn't moved and is still entitled to his space. The only question that remains is advantage/disadvantage. If the offensive player has knocked him down, taking away any chance at a rebound on a miss, than I say you have an offensive foul.

Grail

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Grail
Just my opinion, (and the way I called it last night). Defender is entitled to the space he is standing in on the floor, regardless of who he is defending. If a player crashes into him, causing displacement or advantage/disadvantage, he cannot be at fault. He has done nothing to initiate the play or the contact. He is legally standing in a position on the floor.

In your case the offensive player "slides" around him, or at least leans his head and shoulders past the defender. Defender still hasn't moved and is still entitled to his space. The only question that remains is advantage/disadvantage. If the offensive player has knocked him down, taking away any chance at a rebound on a miss, than I say you have an offensive foul.

I had a similar situation last week and called the PC. I'm with Grail on this one.

[Ralph Stubenthal]

Originally posted by Smitty
Just because a body ends up on the floor doesn't mean a foul has occurred. Often in plays like these, the player with the ball has to make such an acrobatic move to avoid contact with the defender (or slight contact that's not foul-worthy), he comes down off balance and crashes. Along those same lines, the defender, either anticipating contact or flopping to try and suck you into a charge call, ends up on the floor for no apparent reason. Not all contact is a foul. Not all bodies on the floor got there because of a foul. Kids fall down. They usually get back up. Life goes on.

You don't understand the situation I am describing. It was not incidental contact nor was it minor falling or faking. There was a tremendous collision between the dribbler and the defender and the drfender was knocked to the floor. Something HAD to be called in this situation.

[cmckenna]

I would have no called it but it sounds like on of those gotta be ther to see it situations.

One question... did you use advantage/disadvantage to help your decision making process. Did the dribbler gain an advantage by the defensive player going down? Did the defender gain an advantage by affecting the dribblers path or ability to proceed with his actions? Just curious...

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal

You don't understand the situation I am describing. It was not incidental contact nor was it minor falling or faking. There was a tremendous collision between the dribbler and the defender and the drfender was knocked to the floor. Something HAD to be called in this situation.

After reading this & rereading the original I'll add if you HAVE TO call something (and I personally have no problem with you saying something HAD to be called) then go with the PC. For 2 reasons - hard to justify calling a block on B1 if he's just standing there and calling the block will only encourage the players to take it harder & harder to the basket. And before you know it you'll have bodies on the floor on every trip.

[Ralph Stubenthal]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Why?

Because the defender was severely knocked to the floor and the dribbler was displaced to the side and "stumbled" off holding the ball. Maybe you can't visualize the situation because it is hard to put the picture to words. Any good official would have HAD to call something.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal

Because the defender was severely knocked to the floor and the dribbler was displaced to the side and "stumbled" off holding the ball. Maybe you can't visualize the situation because it is hard to put the picture to words. Any good official would have HAD to call something.

After reading this last post, how about "travel"? B1 did nothing wrong...ESPECIALLY IF THEY DIDN'T MOVE. A1 stumbled off HOLDING THE BALL.

-------> TRAVEL!

[Edited by Indy_Ref on Feb 12th, 2004 at 12:22 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

If A1 violated as a result of the contact, you can bail out with the travel. If B1 is knocked out of position by A1 who scores or crashes, you should have a foul. The head and shoulders means nothing here. B1 has a spot on the floor - A1 must avoid the contact at that point. Just putting head and shoulders past the defender does not allow the rest of A1's body to crash through B1.

Another common missed call I see is where A1 only makes partial contact (hits half the body). Many refs go with the block in this situation as well. But it really doesn't matter how much of the body A1 hits, or what part of A1 makes the contact. If B1 is set with LGP and A1 makes contact such that it creates an advantage/disadvantage, you need to call either a violation or a foul on A1.

[The whistle]

I agree the Hawks on this point. I will say, that whichever call you make, the important thing to remember is to "sell it". You're only going to be right to half the people anyway.

[DJ]

I agree that when I watch games that too many times officials "lean" towards not rewarding the defense for good play. If there is "judgement" (and this will cause some consternation for "rules guys) involved with this call the tendency is to call a block. When you see this called from the stands you scratch your head and wonder what angle gave that judgement!! Throw in the "flop" and this may be one of our tougher calls to get right.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
There is a game situation that has always bothered me. It happens in a fast boys game. When a dribbler charges into the paint for a layup and crashes into the chest of a defender with legal guarding position, it is an easy player control call. But, as happened last night, the defender is set up in the paint and not moving. The dribbler charges in and goes to one side enough to get his head and shoulders around the defender before contact occurs. A body on the floor. A call has to be made quickly. I called a block. My "logic" is that the defender never aquired legal guarding position; he never got in front of the defender, facing him, with both feet on the floor. But in reality, he was intitled to the spot he was in because he WAS there first and he never moved. I hope that you can envision the situation I am trying to describe with words. Had the defender lifted a foot off the floor to move in, the call would have been a no brainer, but he never moved a muscle. Had he not ended up on the floor, I would likely have no called it. I have seen this situation many times and I have never been comfortable with it. I am not satisfied that either call-a charge nor a block is a really good call but something had to be called. Can anyone offer any insight regarding this situation.

You answered you own question. B1 had a legal position on the court relative to A1 and B1 never moved until A1 made contact with B1 with such force that B1 was knocked to the ground. Common foul against A1.

MTD, Sr.