The situation: A fastbreak. An offensive player who's running hard upcourt catches the outlet pass in the midcourt area. However, a defender plants herself in the area where the offensive player will take her first step after catching the pass. So, of course, the offensive player, whose head is naturally turned back downcourt in order to catch the pass, crashes into the planted defender after making the catch and either travelling or, worse, a charge is called on the offensive player.

Correct call? Or should it be a blocking foul on the defender for not giving the offensive player a fair chance to avoid contact (like a step and a half)?

The foul was correct. There is no "allowed a step" rule with a ball handler. The only player that is allowed a step is an offensive player that is being screened in certain circumstances.

Peace

If the defender obtained legal guarding position, then it is either a player control foul, or a travel, if you judge the contact to be incidental. A player in posession of the ball is entitled to neither time, nor distance, and must expect to be guarded.

Now, if A1 jumped to make the catch, then B1 must have obtained her legal guarding position prior to A1 leaving the floor. She can't wait until the girl is in the air and then show up underneath her. Same principle as a player taking a shot.

The play that you describe is covered in the case book somewhere, but I don't have it with me.

See Case book play 10.6.1 Situation B.

Z

Probably doesn't have a case book, z. Sounds like a fan.

Worse yet? A Duke fan?

He can also look at NCAA rule 4-33.4 and 4-33.5 for the relevant criteria for establishing legal guarding position. The NCAA rulebook can be downloaded from ncaa.org.

Just hold on there a cotton-picking minute Miss Juulie! Don't be cracking on a Duke fan. Remember, jealousy is such a petty emotion.:D

Personally, I couldn't care less about Duke, assuming we're talking about the men's team here. But I'm pretty sure that BBR isn't a Duke fan, so I was just pointing out that aspect of things.

Correct.

If the offensive player catches the ball prior to the contact, the defender must either be in the spot before the offensive player jumps or, if they take the spot after the offensive player jump, allow the offensive player room to get one foot down after the jump.

If the offensive player doesn't catch the ball before contact, the defender must be in the spot even earlier...allowing the opponent up to 2 steps to stop...depending on speed.

What's peculiar about this play is that a position that a defender takes that is "too late" becomes "in time" if the opponent catches the ball.

Also, how could a charge call be worse than traveling when the former actually happened and the latter didnt? It's gutless to make up a travel that never occurred.

I've seen these where the best call was traveling. Defender in position, and ball carrier jumps and intiates slight (incidental) contact against the defender. The offensive player isn't able to adjust to the contact and ends up traveling.

Traveling is called because the contact didn't put the defense at a disadvantage nor did it displace anyone. Happens regularly with good defense.

I agree that it does happen. But, just as many times, I've seen the defender get pancaked and a travel gets called. That's wimping out.

I appreciate the responses, even the Duke banter (yes, I'm a fan, by longtime residence after an Indiana upbringing, especially of the W team).

I don't have access to the casebook of course. But looked at the 2004 rulebook online (thanks for the tip, Lotto).

I sense that things aren't fully settled in the world of the fastbreak outlet pass.

Rule 4, Sec. 33, Art. 7 on page BR-73, specifically the example labelled A.R. 25, talks about the fastbreak outlet pass and how it'd be a foul on A1 if B1 were planted 10 feet ahead before A1 received the pass.

Ok, that's plenty fair enough. But reading that from A1's perspective, A.R. 25 says to me that I have to be given some reasonable time and distance to perceive that B1 is planted in my path. In trying to picture the real situation, A.R. 25 seems to be saying that B1 would have to be planted before I turn back to receive the pass. As A1, I'd then have the responsibility to glance upcourt and assess my planned path before I turned back to look for the outlet pass. I couldn't just run hellbent upcourt looking exclusively back.

That's what it suggests to me, but as a practical matter I don't know how an official is supposed to take all that in.
This business about A1 and B1 being 10 feet apart at some point, with B1 already planted no less, seems unworkable.

Trying to put myself in an official's place, it'd seem easier to call if the interpretation were focussed on whether A1 has a reasonable chance to avoid contact after catching the pass--such as, say, the stride and a half it takes to get the ball down for a dribble or to make a pass. Then it wouldn't matter whether I looked 10 feet upcourt before turning back to receive the pass and whether B1 was already there when I looked, which is what A.R. 25 seeming to be requiring both A1 and the official to assess.

However the letter of the law can be read, I'd offer two considerations that I think should underlie and inform interpretation:

1. Safety. Discouraging high-speed crashes, of course, but, even more, not requiring A1 to make a potential knee- blowout kind of move to avoid contact, and

2. Enhancing the game. Fastbreak passing takes practiced teamwork. It's the only way for a team without a speedy dribbler--a Raymond Felton, John Lucas III, Ivory Latta, Marion Jones etc.--to run the break effectively. For the good of the game, maybe that ought to be given some reasonable allowance so that midcourt passing plays are encouraged, not so readily penalized by a travelling or charge call. Just a fan's wish.

Yo, Duketownie, here's the applicable NFHS case play- 10.6.3SitD:

<i>A1 is running towards A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a)A1 runs into B1 before receiving the ball; or(b)A1 receives the ball and before taking a step contacts B1.
<b>RULING:</b> In both (a) and (b), A1 is responsible for contact. In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two strides prior to contact. In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 has the ball, the contact is charging by A1.</i>

NCAA uses the same concepts.The idea is to award good defense.

Btw, from an official's standpoint, Coach K is a whiny jerk.He oughta get the Jim Boheim Lifetime Achievement Award for Whiny Jerkism.

Thanks for the quote from the casebook. That's almost word-for-word what "A.R. 25" is in 4.33-7 in the NCAA book.

One of my main points is that the 10 feet that are called for would seem to be a tricky thing to size up in real time. In fact, I don't think that condition was met by the B1 player in the two recent instances that I have on tape, but I'll check. A1 (aka Monique Currie) was called for travelling in both instances.

I take your point about K.

Thanks again.

[Edited by duketownie on Mar 5th, 2005 at 07:59 AM]