Bride of the Son of Under (the Sequel)

[Hawks Coach]

In the two "under the front" threads, I quoted a series of rules that I think boil down to a basic proposition.

A is the airborne player, B has both feet on the court when A leaves ground. My proposition is that A has the right to come down on any piece of court that was open when A left the ground. B owns that space that B occupied at that same instant AND all vertical area over that space. If A comes down on B with B not leaving B's vertical plane, the fault lies with A regardless of where B was facing. Players cannot jump into other players. If B moves from that vertical plane after A is airborne and contact results, the fault lies with B. Players cannot move into a space under an airborne player and deny them the right to a safe landing. Granted not all contact requires a foul, and all violations of the vertical plane do not involve contact - this only applies if you see the need to call a foul based on contact that occurs between A and B.

The one exception I conceive is B stepping in front of a driving A to take charge without establishing legal guarding position. I believe that the legal guarding position provisions are intended to address a player that moves to take a charge, not a stationary player that is run into by a moving player who is out of control. While this exception requires some subjective judgment, I think everyone knows what it looks like when a player steps in front to draw a foul rather than being stationary.

If you object to this interpretation of the rules, what rule and/or reasoning would you offer in support of an alternative reading?

[mick]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

The one exception I conceive is B stepping in front of a driving A to take charge without establishing legal guarding position. I believe that the legal guarding position provisions are intended to address a player that moves to take a charge, not a stationary player that is run into by a moving player who is out of control. While this exception requires some subjective judgment, I think everyone knows what it looks like when a player steps in front to draw a foul rather than being stationary.

If you object to this interpretation of the rules, what rule and/or reasoning would you offer in support of an alternative reading?

Coach,
I rarely use the adjective "Stationary" when interpretting a player control foul vs. block call. That is why "they" use the term "initial guarding position".
Just a thought.
mick

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
In the two "under the front" threads, I quoted a series of rules that I think boil down to a basic proposition.

A is the airborne player, B has both feet on the court when A leaves ground. My proposition is that A has the right to come down on any piece of court that was open when A left the ground. B owns that space that B occupied at that same instant AND all vertical area over that space. If A comes down on B with B not leaving B's vertical plane, the fault lies with A regardless of where B was facing. Players cannot jump into other players. If B moves from that vertical plane after A is airborne and contact results, the fault lies with B. Players cannot move into a space under an airborne player and deny them the right to a safe landing. Granted not all contact requires a foul, and all violations of the vertical plane do not involve contact - this only applies if you see the need to call a foul based on contact that occurs between A and B.

The one exception I conceive is B stepping in front of a driving A to take charge without establishing legal guarding position. I believe that the legal guarding position provisions are intended to address a player that moves to take a charge, not a stationary player that is run into by a moving player who is out of control. While this exception requires some subjective judgment, I think everyone knows what it looks like when a player steps in front to draw a foul rather than being stationary.

If you object to this interpretation of the rules, what rule and/or reasoning would you offer in support of an alternative reading?

Coach, you know I'm going to agree with MOST of what you said. However, COMMON SENSE (which to me is what most of officiating is all about) won't allow me to call a foul considering our previously discussed scenario.

In your statement, "...all violations of the vertical plane do not involve contact...", that is the part where I believe a subjective judgment should be made. Are you saying that these violations SHOULD be penalized? Or that they are the ones that need to be studied and penalized if the penalizing player gains an advantage? Or something else?

IN OUR PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED EXAMPLE from another post, even though BACK violated FRONT's vertical space over FRONT's head, FRONT reached up after BACK (in my opinion, legally) gained control and hit BACK's arms and the ball came loose. As stated, at NO time did BACK ever touch FRONT. Your cited rules support a foul on BACK for violating FRONT's vertical space. However, my common sense pleads foul on FRONT.

[Edited by Indy_Ref on Jan 9th, 2001 at 01:42 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

Indy- to clarify, the context of my caveat on no contact was to say that there must be contact and it must be such that you believe it warrants a foul (factor in advantage, amount of contact, etc.). I can see your point on B over F, and I think that is probably the gray area. I just think that you end up with some real difficulty in this gray area if you have anything other than a no-call or foul on B, but I can see how the arm contact appears to be a foul on F, and maybe it is. No rule or case to address it directly anyway, so it will be up to the beholder who beholdin' the whistle to call it (or not).

Mick - I know that nothing refers to stationary, and in reality, a player is rarely completely stationary unless setting up for a charge. What I am attempting to distinguish is what I believe the intent of the rules on establishing a legal guarding position and to suggest that those rules exist for a specific purpose, that is, to deal with players who are attempting to guard another player, as opposed to players maintaining a relatively fixed position on the court.

If B is in position on the court and out of the blue A comes crashing into B, I find it hard to place B at fault - either it is a no call or A committed a foul. If B is guarding A1 away from ball and A2 flattens B from behind while jumping for an alleyoop pass, it seems that you have to call a foul on A2, but I can find no rule that says so because B has not established a legal guarding position with respect to A2.

[mick]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach


If B is in position on the court and out of the blue A comes crashing into B, I find it hard to place B at fault - either it is a no call or A committed a foul.

Coach,
I can rationalize your call simply, as follows:
4-19-6 : A player control foul is a common foul....
4-19-2 : A common foul is a personal foul....

No praw. Foul A.

mick

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref
Coach, you know I'm going to agree with MOST of what you said. However, COMMON SENSE (which to me is what most of officiating is all about) won't allow me to call a foul considering our previously discussed scenario.

In your statement, "...all violations of the vertical plane do not involve contact...", that is the part where I believe a subjective judgment should be made. Are you saying that these violations SHOULD be penalized? Or that they are the ones that need to be studied and penalized if the penalizing player gains an advantage? Or something else?

IN OUR PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED EXAMPLE from another post, even though BACK violated FRONT's vertical space over FRONT's head, FRONT reached up after BACK (in my opinion, legally) gained control and hit BACK's arms and the ball came loose. As stated, at NO time did BACK ever touch FRONT. Your cited rules support a foul on BACK for violating FRONT's vertical space. However, my common sense pleads foul on FRONT.

[Edited by Indy_Ref on Jan 9th, 2001 at 01:42 PM] [/B]

Coach, to prove to you that I do "call what I preach", I had a situation last night where a player went to the floor to grab a ball (I'll call her FRONT.) That player ended up with possession on the seat of her pants. She was looking to pass the ball to a teammate when an opponent came up from BEHIND (I'll call her BACK), reached OVER her, and grabbed the ball. Back grabbed nothing but ball! But only for a slight moment in time. FRONT then jostled the ball away and BACK stepped away. After the jostling, BACK again stepped up to try and grab the ball...but this time just slightly from the side, but she still reached over FRONT. FRONT promptly reached up and shoved BACK away with her left hand & arm. I blew the whistle...foul on FRONT!! Of course it happened right in front of FRONT's bench...and the coach thought I was crazy when I whistled the foul on his player.

The AD was sitting in a perfect position/angle to see EXACLTY what happened. After the game both he and my partner said my calling of the foul on FRONT was a great call, and that I made the right call.

I know it's not the same exact scenario as discussed earlier, but it is very similar in that BACK "violated" FRONT's vertical plane.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Here are somethings that should be remembered.

1) Only the defense can guard.

2) Anybody on the court can set a screen. That means that
the ball handler is subject to the provisions of the
screening rule and defenders can set screens.

3) The pricipal of verticality applies to all players on the
court.

4) Time and distance applies for guarding or screeing only
when the guarding and screening is against a player with-
out the ball.

5) Time and distance does not apply when guarding or scree-
ning is against a player with the ball as long the player
with the ball is not airborne. If the player wiht the
ball is airborne, only distance applies. That means the
player who is guarding or screening must only allow the
player with the ball to come down.

6) A player who has control of the ball must expect to be
guarded at all times starting with the instant he esta-
blishes player control. A player without the ball does
not have to be expected to be guarded all of the time.

A1 is occupying a space on the court prior to B1, who has control of the ball, becomes airborne and makes contact with A1 before returning to the floor. Has a foul been committed and if so who has committed the foul? Those are the questions that must be asked.

In the above play B1 has committed a personal foul. The foul is a common foul and if foul occurs during a try it is a player control foul.

One can find a plethora of plays covering guarding and screeing (I prefer guarding and screening to block/charge) in publications by the NFHS, NCAA, IAABO, FIBA, and Referee Magazine.

[Mark Dexter]

Indy_ref:
I think the main difference in your case is that FRONT physically pushed her hands out to move BACK out of the way. Even if entitled to vertical space, she cannot intentionally (not an I foul) push someone she knows is there out of the way.

In a jumping situation, FRONT (once in the air) cannot control her height (gravity does that nicely.) If BACK is there, then BACK is subjecting herself to contact which is either a no-call (my personal thinking) or a foul on BACK.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

The one exception I conceive is B stepping in front of a driving A to take charge without establishing legal guarding position. I believe that the legal guarding position provisions are intended to address a player that moves to take a charge, not a stationary player that is run into by a moving player who is out of control. While this exception requires some subjective judgment, I think everyone knows what it looks like when a player steps in front to draw a foul rather than being stationary.

If you object to this interpretation of the rules, what rule and/or reasoning would you offer in support of an alternative reading?

As I stated earlier, a player in control of the ball must be expected to be guarded the instant he/she gains control of the ball. Time and distance is not a factor if the player in control of the ball is not airborne and if the player is airbone distance is a factor.

1) A1 is dribbling hard toward the basket when B1 steps in front of A1. A1 places both feet on the floor facing B1 an instant before A1 makes contact with B1. Charging by A1. This play can be found in both the NFHS and NCAA casebooks.

2) A1 is dribbling hard toward down the court and goes airborne to either shoot or pass the ball. Prior to A1 going airborne B1 occupies a spot on the court. A1 while airborne makes contact with B1. Charging by A1.

3) Same as (2) but A1 returns to the floor and then makes contact with B1. Charging by A1.

Why? When A1 has the ball, he does not have carte blanche to do anything with his body. When A1 decides to go airborne he must do so in a manner that allows him to return to the floor before making contact with any player who had a legal position on the floor before A1 goes airborne.

We officials have become mesmorized by the leaping ability players that we have forgot to do our job to make sure that the leaping player does not put players who have a legal position on the court at a disadvantage.

[Hawks Coach]

I agree with your call Indy in this situation, because, as MDex points out, a push is a whole different ball game. For Mdenucci (and any others who want to help me with this), I would ask your opinion on this situation, because these guarding provisions have frankly confused me from the moment I tried to apply them to game situations.

A has ball and is driving toward hoop. Just before A goes up for shot, B steps into path of A and sets feet firmly on floor until A crashes into B a brief moment later. B has back to A the whole time. I have always thought that this is PC on A, but the establishment of initial legal guarding position has not occurred. It seems to me that A still ran into B, PC foul. But then why the discussion of initial legal guarding position and torso facing A in 4.7.2a and 4.23.2b? Is there anyone who can explain this in terms that a coach can understand?!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I agree with your call Indy in this situation, because, as MDex points out, a push is a whole different ball game. For Mdenucci (and any others who want to help me with this), I would ask your opinion on this situation, because these guarding provisions have frankly confused me from the moment I tried to apply them to game situations.

A has ball and is driving toward hoop. Just before A goes up for shot, B steps into path of A and sets feet firmly on floor until A crashes into B a brief moment later. B has back to A the whole time. I have always thought that this is PC on A, but the establishment of initial legal guarding position has not occurred. It seems to me that A still ran into B, PC foul. But then why the discussion of initial legal guarding position and torso facing A in 4.7.2a and 4.23.2b? Is there anyone who can explain this in terms that a coach can understand?!

If it wasn't a legal guarding position, then it was (by the rules) a screening attempt (an attempt to prevent an opponent from reaching a desired position -- it applies to both offenseive and defensive players).

Notice that the direction the screener is facing is irrelevant. Also notice that time and distance are relevant (since A was moving), even though A has the ball. Since B did not give A time to avoid contact, and was within two strides of A, this is a blocking foul (assuming it's not a no-call) on B.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Indy_ref:
I think the main difference in your case is that FRONT physically pushed her hands out to move BACK out of the way. Even if entitled to vertical space, she cannot intentionally (not an I foul) push someone she knows is there out of the way.

In a jumping situation, FRONT (once in the air) cannot control her height (gravity does that nicely.) If BACK is there, then BACK is subjecting herself to contact which is either a no-call (my personal thinking) or a foul on BACK.

The point that I was making had to do with the fact that BACK violated FRONT's VERTICAL PLANE in order to grab the ball, however, BACK NEVER created any contact. Therefore, in my opinion, BACK never committed a foul.