legal guarding position

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dbyb
Mick, both you and Bob Jenkins had a no call on this situation while most others had a PC albeit for different reasons. Why the no call? How can you have non incidental contact that puts both players at a disadvantage and have a no call? Dbyb

If you go back and read my original post, I basically said the same thing as Mick and Bob- i.e. "if you call anything". I can't speak for those two gentlemen, but this is my take on it. If the dribbler tries to go between 2 legally positioned defenders, the onus for contact lies with the dribbler. If there's not much contact involved, and the dribbler loses the ball, then he's the author of his own misfortune. No harm/nofoul- advantage/disadvantage-etc. If the contact is heavy and someone gets knocked on their butt, then maybe you'll have to make a call of some kind. And if the dribbler is trying to force his way between 2 legally position defenders, the dribbler is gonna be nailed. It's a judgement call, iow, between a foul and a no call.

[Dbyb]

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dbyb
Mick, both you and Bob Jenkins had a no call on this situation while most others had a PC albeit for different reasons. Why the no call? How can you have non incidental contact that puts both players at a disadvantage and have a no call? Dbyb

Dbyb,
My no call was based pon what I see most (ie, only the dribbler going down). Of course, if one, or both, defenders went down and the defenders remained legal the onus is on the dribbler.

Bob said the same, as did JR and others.
mick

[Hawks Coach]

I concur with the no-call. And in most well-reffed games, this is what you see (and you hear exactly what mick originally said, too ). Dribbler goes where she shouldn't, goes to the court, ball goes free, play on.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If you go back and read my original post, I basically said the same thing as Mick and Bob- i.e. "if you call anything". I can't speak for those two gentlemen, but this is my take on it. If the dribbler tries to go between 2 legally positioned defenders, the onus for contact lies with the dribbler. If there's not much contact involved, and the dribbler loses the ball, then he's the author of his own misfortune. No harm/nofoul- advantage/disadvantage-etc. If the contact is heavy and someone gets knocked on their butt, then maybe you'll have to make a call of some kind. And if the dribbler is trying to force his way between 2 legally position defenders, the dribbler is gonna be nailed. It's a judgement call, iow, between a foul and a no call.

Was worth the wait. Bottom line: there are a helluvalot of things a defender can do under the rules. Standing still while the AI wannabe hits the deck is one of them.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Directly from 10-6-2
"If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent."

Nowhere does 10-6-2 talk about head and shoulders past two opponents, or past an opponent stationary next to the boundary. You are guilty of completely rewriting the rule.

Oh, but 10-6-2, in the immediate sentence before mentions the two opponent situation and the boundary situation, and give a ruling for those consistent with JR's - hence you want to tie that thought to the next sentence, which mentions head and shoulders. However, the sentence following the head and shoulders sentence talks about a dribbler moving in a straight line, which has nothing to do with the head and shoulders scenario, or the trap/boundary scenario. Three scenarios, three different rules related only by the fact that they all involve a dribbler.

In other words, 10-6-2 has within it apples, oranges, and bananas, and it is you who are mixing them and trying to blend two unrelated sentences. 10-6-2 has several unrelated provisions regarding dribblers and the responsibility for contact. I have always felt that the contact section could be better broken up with a), b) c) provisions, but it is not. So let common sense, the casebook, and a simple reading of the entire rule prevail here and admit that you have erred in your interpretation.

I would if I was, but I'm not. Go to the casebook and you will see a case play about the straight path ride or avoid
sentence, but where is the play that describes a head and shoulder past the defender? That is why JR's play says a dribbler ATTEMPTING to split. It is talking about contact BEFORE A1 gets past.

As I've said before, I don't think that the case book is wrong, it was wrongly applied to the play at the start of this post.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Was worth the wait. Bottom line: there are a helluvalot of things a defender can do under the rules. Standing still while the AI wannabe hits the deck is one of them.

Interesting thread that I just noticed.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that frequently the player with the ball will pick it up as he is trying to split those two defenders -- sometimes the best/right call in that situation ends up being a travel.

Good officiating doesn't include bailing out players that make bad decisions.

--Rich

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Good officiating doesn't include bailing out players that make bad decisions.
--Rich

This is the real rule that should have been cited!