Block/Charge call

[lookin2improve]

Looking for your guys (and gals) judgement on the following play:

A1 dribbling up the court. B1 sets up in defensive position, but his feet are 4+feet apart. A1 makes a move around B1, but collides with B1's foot. Both players to the floor...ball goes rolling down court....what (if any) call do you have??? B1 never moved (until A1's contact) after taking his initial spot.

thanks in advance.

[Ed Maeder]

Sounds like a block. Read rule 4-23.

[rainmaker]

I suppose it depends on how tall he is. If he's Shaq's size, it's probably just legal guarding position, don't you suppose?

[lookin2improve]

true...but this guy's 5'4"...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by lookin2improve

Looking for your guys (and gals) judgement on the following play:

A1 dribbling up the court. B1 sets up in defensive position, but his feet are 4+feet apart. A1 makes a move around B1, but collides with B1's foot. Both players to the floor...ball goes rolling down court....what (if any) call do you have??? B1 never moved (until A1's contact) after taking his initial spot.

Judgement call. NFHS rule 10-6-1 says that the defender can't bend his body into other than a normal position. The FED has clarified that statement before by saying that if the defender widens his stance, and subsequently contact is made outside of the normal frame of his body stance, the call should be on the defender.

You have to judge yourself if the defender assumed other than a normal stance and if the contact also occurred outside of that normal stance. Iow, it's a "haveta be there" call.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Judgement call. NFHS rule 10-6-1 says that the defender can't bend his body into other than a normal position. The FED has clarified that statement before by saying that if the defender widens his stance, and subsequently contact is made outside of the normal frame of his body stance, the call should be on the defender.

You have to judge yourself if the defender assumed other than a normal stance and if the contact also occurred outside of that normal stance. Iow, it's a "haveta be there" call.

JR's right. Here is the text of the rule that he cited. It sounds like a blocking foul to me.

10-6-1 . . . A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics. ...

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by lookin2improve

true...but this guy's 5'4"...

I figured. Even so, I think he might have LGP if his feet are spread, but he's crouched down, hands straight up, he never moves anything an inch...

.... and if you are exaggerating a little about the 4' part. I mean did you really get down and measure?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I figured. Even so, I think he might have LGP if his feet are spread, but he's crouched down, hands straight up, he never moves anything an inch...

.... and if you are exaggerating a little about the 4' part. I mean did you really get down and measure?

Some coaches actually teach that defensive stance. It's called the Ron Jeremy Defense.

It's true, it's true.....

[lookin2improve]

thanks all...that's the rule reference I went back to....imo, the kid never had LGP..he was so wide that he would have had to bring his feet in to move up the court...his coach was just looking for motivation for his team b/c they were getting throttled by 30....

thanks again.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by lookin2improve

thanks all...that's the rule reference I went back to....imo, the kid never had LGP..he was so wide that he would have had to bring his feet in to move up the court...his coach was just looking for motivation for his team b/c they were getting throttled by 30....

thanks again.

This is going to sound insane, but just because a player has legal guarding position, doesn't mean that his position is legal.

In other words he can still commit a foul even though he has LGP. Simply does something else that is illegal. In this case he breaks 10-6-1 and that is the reason for the blocking foul.

It is afterall my opinion that this kid does indeed have LGP. There are only two requirements for that (4-23-2 a+b) and the kid's position meets both of them.

Let me give you a further example. The kid has both feet on the floor and is facing his opponent, but his arms are extended in front of him at a 45 degree angle upward. He has LGP, but he is violating the principle of verticality. If the contact occurs on his torso, it would likely be a PC foul, but if the contact were to occur with his arms, then an illegal use of hands foul would be correct.