Ball is in the corner. A1 on ball side block, B1 playing behind him and B2 fronting him. Ball lobbed to A1 who jumps in the air and catches the ball then comes down on B1, who was playing behind him, I call PC because B1 had legal guarding position before A1 left the floor. A's coach was very upset saying that defense HAS to let offense come down. Is this a case of legal guarding position??

Thanks

shont

Yes, B1 was there before he left the floor and was guarding a player with the ball, so time and distance is not a factor.

Good call.

This might make for some interesting discussion but I recently found out that the education officer in my association said that we should call an intentional foul if any player tries to take a charge from an airborne shooter or an airborne player with the ball, by setting up under them while they're in the air.

Any thoughts on that??

ref18.
I want to make sure I understand. Your educator meant if they were moving into the airborne player or undercutting someone, not if they had already established LGP, right?

How can you judge an attempt to get there before they leave the floor from attempting to undercut an airborne player? We are talking split seconds in most cases, I think this is as wrong as saying there must be a whistle anytime a player hits the floor, which another assignor suggested a while back.

This was if they try to set up LGP after the player has left his feet. Obviously to draw the charge. I see some logic in this statment, but haven't yet had to call this.

This is how I see it. There is no possibility of obtaining LGP while a player is in the air. Therefore if you set up under the player 100% of the time there will be a foul, and as it's an intentional act to draw the charge which is impossible because you can't obtain legal guarding position then I'm ruling this as an intentional block, with the appropriate penalties.

And yes, undercutting is the only time when this would be called this way.

What if (s)he has LGP before the player is airborne? Are you calling a PC every time or will there be times you'll have incidental contact?

At the force someone comes down, I don't think there'd be incidental contact in this situation. I could be wrong, I haven't had to made that decision yet, but I would say I'm on the side of calling a player control foul if it is warranted.

To me your educator made a statement that sounds good at first, but might be a generalization that overrides a judgement call. Some plays are very cut and dry and very black and white. But a lot of plays fall into that tricky gray area that lends itself to rules interpretation and also makes our jobs interesting and exciting.
I've got to think about this statement some more.

The first time I heard this school of thought, I was thinking it was insane, but then I thought about it, and it sounds like it can work. Now I've just got to see it happen on the court, and make a decision based on that.

I certainly hope that what your "education officer" meant was on a dangerous undercut situation.

I've seen a defensive player set up a hair late many times before and get a block called against them, but it is in no way an intentional foul. If your education officer meant that literally, maybe he/she should be busted down in rank to "education private third class."

Z

If the defender moves underneath after the shooter goes up, it's a block. There's no question about that, is there? I think your educatiion person is saying, in some cases, he wants it to be not a common foul but an intentional foul, right? Seems like a hard sell to me, 99.9% of the time.

Regarding the original play, seems pretty clear that it's PC if the defender didn't move. Block if defender did move. The easiest way to nail block/charge is to ref the defense.

Juulie:

I think that his instructor is trying to differentiate between these two player:

Play 1: A1 driving down the lane and B1 in attempt to draw a charge takes a defensive position facing A1 just after A1 becomes airborne. RULING: Blocking by B1.

Play 2: A1 driving down the lane and B1 undercuts A1. An undercut is an intentional foul at the least and could be a flagrant foul if B1's action is really out of line.

MTD, Sr.

...mmm-hhmmm.... and your point would be...

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.

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.