LEGAL GUARDING POSITION

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Have Mark go to the attic and find his brief case.

Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away...

The rule interpretation used to be that any time a player was airborne and somebody went underneath it was intentional.
That was changed and Mark I believe has pointed out the difference in plays....

Kelvin:

You are correct, but I am supposed to be getting the house ready and packing for our family's trip to visit my mother and sister in Orlando. When I get back after the First of the year. In fact if my memory is correct it might have been an automatic flagrant foul.

MTD, Sr.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Have Mark go to the attic and find his brief case.

Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away...

The rule interpretation used to be that any time a player was airborne and somebody went underneath it was intentional.
That was changed and Mark I believe has pointed out the difference in plays....

So the point is that this is a rule that has been changed, and one association or assignor wants the old way back. Okay.

My concern is that taking away the shooter's landing spot, because you're trying to draw a charge is different from undercutting. Undercutting to me means that the defender takes the legs right out from under the shooter, so he literally cannot land on his feet. Stepping in to take the charge could mean that the opponents end up chest to chest with the shooters toes on top of the defender's toes. Not the same thing at all, but both intentional if this assignor gets his way. I'd like to see more distinction made.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

So the point is that this is a rule that has been changed, and one association or assignor wants the old way back. Okay.

My concern is that taking away the shooter's landing spot, because you're trying to draw a charge is different from undercutting. Undercutting to me means that the defender takes the legs right out from under the shooter, so he literally cannot land on his feet. Stepping in to take the charge could mean that the opponents end up chest to chest with the shooters toes on top of the defender's toes. Not the same thing at all, but both intentional if this assignor gets his way. I'd like to see more distinction made.

Juulie:

I agree with you, they are not the same. The blocking foul is a personal foul that is committed against an airborne shooter that is neither intentional nor flagrant. An undercut foul is a personal foul that is definitely an intentional foul and could be a flagrant foul. At one time an undercut foul was an automatic flagrant personal foul.

If you go back and look at my thread about an unbelievable play: http://www.officialforum.com/thread/16643, you will see a good description of an undercut play. Because shooter landed on the defender's back and was not hurt, I assessed it as an intentional personal foul. Had the shooter landed on the court and gotten hurt, I would have assessed it as a flagrant personal foul.

The key is that you will know and undercut when you see it, and whether it is intentional or flagrant will be obvious.

MTD, Sr.