Block Charge Question
 

My association now requires its newer officials to complete an online training course through the American Sport Education Program (asep.com). This question was part of the course and I'd like to hear your thoughts:

A post player runs toward the basket for a pass from the guard. A defender steps into position and plants both feet right in the post player's path, a few steps away. The post player catches the ball and then immediately slams into the defender. What call should the lead official make?

a. incindental contact; no foul
b. charging foul
c. blocking foul
d. intentional blocking foul charging foul

How would you answer this question?

The correct answer is B but what in the world is D????

I would answer it by following the ruling provided in the case book.

10.6.11 SITUATION C: A defensive player takes a position in front of the post player A1 to prevent A1 from receiving the ball. A high pass is made over the head and out of reach of the defensive player. The post player A1 moves toward the basket to catch the pass and try for goal. As the pass is made, a teammate of the defensive player moves into the path of A1, in a guarding position. What are the rights of the pivot player A1 and the defensive player who moves into A1's path? RULING: The defensive player has switched to guard a player who does not have the ball. Therefore, the switching player must assume a position one or two strides in advance of the post player (depending upon the speed of movement of such player) to make the action legal. If the defensive player moves into the path of the post player A1 after A1 has control of the ball (provided the post player is not in the air at the time), the play becomes a guarding situation on a player with the ball and no distance or time limit is involved.

The answer given is a blocking foul. I disagreed because it said the defender plants both feet a few steps away. Even if the post player didn't have the ball, a few steps is enough space to avoid contact.

Also sorry for the double post (its actually not a double post because I misspelled 'hear' as 'here' and thought I caught it in time, but evidently I did not.

If this is for Federation rules, the correct answer is not listed.

It should read (e) a player control foul. The contact is certainly not incidental. The foul is not charging because charging is when a player does not have the ball. It is not blocking because the defender legally obtained that spot on the floor. It is not whatever d is because d is quagmosh.

You know that you can delete the other post, right?

Click on the thread, click edit, hit the delete circle, then confirm.

Aside from the fact that the list of possible answers is incomplete, it's a really stupid question for a test. It's a had-to-see-it play, and to make a judgment from a written description is impossible here.

As described, the key words seem to be "a few steps away." Given that, I don't see how it can possibly be called a block.

Is that your final answer? :D

NFHS 10-6-1 "A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip..."
Note that it's "A player" not "A player without the ball"

NFHS 10-6-7 "A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent..."
A dribbler certainly has the ball, and apparently he can charge, even with the ball.

You are, of course, correct that it would be a player control foul. Not because it can't be charging since he has the ball, but because he commited charging while he had the ball.

NFHS 4-19-7 "A player control foul is a common foul committed by a player while he/she is in control of the ball..."

What BITS said. Thanks!

Assuming a legal stance, the defender does not need to give time or distance to a player with the ball. Also you stated he already was "a few steps away" from the player before he had the ball, which satisfies that requirement as well (no more than two steps required). This is clearly a charge AND player control foul (one foul - not mutually exclusive). A charge can be a player control foul or not. The signal for a charge is the "push" signal (two hands out from the body). The signal for player control foul is hand behind the head.

charge

Sorry for coming into this discussion late. The 2007-2008 Simplified & Illustrated has almost this exact scenario on page 137.

I have a block as well. I understand the defender is "a few steps away", but with a moving player who is catching the ball, the defender must give time and distance to that player and later in the sitch it says, "the post player catches, and immediately slams into the defender". The way I see this in my head (which I agree is a "I would have to see it" play) it is a blocking foul.

IMO I'd go with the charge on this. As written, the defender was a few steps away. That is time and distance. The fact that he caught the ball and immediately slams into the defender is irrelevant.
If he didn't catch the ball, but still slammed into the defender what would you have? A charge.
Why penalize good defense if he achieved LGP per rule?

Where do you come up with "with a moving player who is catching the ball, the defender must give time and distance to that player"

There is no time and distance required when the player catches the ball. Go back an reread the casebook play that Nevada posted.

If the offense player has caught the ball; it is a guarding situation and no time or distance is required in NFHS Ball. The NBA has a different rule but not high school.

This is a play where you have to see the whle play and know what happened first but as described catch then collision in Legal guarding position it is a charge/PC foul

Kelvin, for Pete's sake (whoever Pete is), you cant disappear for months at a time and then just show up here to answer a question, as if you'd been sitting in the corner the whole time. Details, Kelvin, we want details!! Where you been, and how are you?

Give your head a shake.......:D

The rules(both NFHS and NCAA) say that no time or distance is required to gain a legal guarding position on a player with the ball. The only proviso is that you must establish LGP on an airborne player before they leave the feet. As you noted above, the player caught the ball <b>before</b> slamming into the defender. It can't be a block under the rules.

If the player hasn't caught the ball, time or distance is required. If they have caught the ball, <b>no</b> time or distance is required.

Basic concept.

And that, folks, is a big part of why we catch so much grief....officials that don't understand the requirements LGP (make up their own criteria) and continue to call a block when it should be a charge.

Amen!!!!!
I can't tell you how many instances that my fellow officials have replied "His feet weren't set" or "He was leaning backward" when I ask them about a call that was indisputably a charge on the offense. I am convinced the typical official in my area is making the correct call on this play less frequently than if they just flipped a coin. How difficult is it to gain full comprehension of Rule 4 section 23?

My pet peeves cheating the defense on block/charge and cheating the offense on continuous motion...due to incorrect or bogus rules interps and/or not being properly trained or studying the real rules

Later

If the catch and contact were simultaneous would you consider it a block then? I am trying to picture this happening and have to admit when I first read the Op I thought Block, Then as I read more posts I am thinking yea a charge fits but what if?

So I have a question then:

If a post player is being fronted and a lob pass comes to him and he jumps to get it, and does indeed grab it while he is still in the air and tries to land and as he is landing he slams into the secondary defender, we have an offensive foul, per HS and college rule?

Or:

A2 is running down the floor looking for an outlet pass, and it is on its way. A1 throws the pass out in front of A2 to lead him. While he is looking the ball in, B1 sets up in front of A2 and right as A2 receives the pass, before he can turn his head around, we have a crash. You are saying this is an offensive foul as well per HS and college rule?

Not looking to argue, just wanting a good straight forward answer.

Assuming B1 has LGP your answer is yes.

If the secondary defender was in his guarding position before the post player left the ground, then yes, it's a charge. If the secondary defender moved to his spot after the offensive player went airborne, then your play would be a block.

If the offensive player catches the ball and lands before the crash, then it's a charge. If the defensive player was in place before the offensive player left the floor, then it doesn't matter if he catches the ball, it's a charge.

When he catches the ball is completely irrelevant. What matters is when the defender obtained LGP.

Not quite. If the player was running full speed, the catch of the ball can turn what was not LGP into LGP. If the defender obtained the position just as the full speed opponent leaped, the defender hasn't given enough time and distance (as is required for a player without the ball). If the player doesn't catch the ball before the contact, it is a block. However, if the opponent catches the ball, the requirement for time/distance is eliminated, and the postion the defender took is LGP....it is a charge.

But, obtaining LGP depends on whether the opponent has the ball or not. The requirements are different. So, the timing of the catch does matter. Contact first could be a block (if the defender didn't obtain the spot allowing for time/distance) while catch first could make the same contact a charge (no time/distance required).

Doesn't this seem like too much to process in a split second? Wouldn't this be much better if there was a guideline in place for this such as, "if in transition between the baseline in the backcourt and tip of circle in the frontcourt, all plays of this nature will be deemed block as this is a way of drawing a cheap offensive foul by hoping to establish LGP before the player has a chance to turn to see the defender."

It might not seem like that to some people, but to me this is, in fact a cheap way to draw an offensive foul by not giving the opportunity to see the defender but for a split second and getting an offensive foul call. And to add to that it is all dependent on whether the guy has the ball or doesn't have the ball, whether he left the ground or was already in air, or landed or was still airborne. That is just too much if, if, and, but, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the rule and will attempt to ref as such, but I am just asking do we think it would be better, in these cases, to have a guideline in place to make these plays way more uniform?

In general, maybe, but in the OP, the answer is obvious. Defender had LGP for donkey's years, and when A caught the ball is irrelevant. PC. And this sitch really doesn't happen very often, if ever. And it's not really all that hard to ref. See the defense, watch for LGP, then glance at offense. NBD.

I don't think that you can rule the acts as "simultaneous" in real time. Note the word "think". You have to pick one as occurring first because of the different rules criteria involved. If the player doesn't have the ball, the defender must give time and distance. If the player has the ball, the defender doesn't have to give time and distance. If the catch and contact are truly simultaneous, I really don't how to call it right, as per the rules.

Btw, note that this doesn't apply to situations where the defender has already attained a LGP by giving time and distance. I'm thinking of cases where the defender steps in front of the offensive player at the last second.

Heckuva question, Smokey....:)

Travel? ;)

Not if you already know where the defense is.

No, it wouldn't be better. And anyway, that's a totally lame "guideline". The player with the ball has to expect to be guarded. If you catch the ball, you have to expect that somebody's there to guard you. If a defender has LGP and you don't see him, that's your fault.

You misspelled "stupid." Where's that annoying spelling guy when you need him?

FCOL, on this play, even if time and distance were required, it looks like a charge. "A few steps" is, by definition, at least 2. The requirement in the rules is "no more than 1 or 2."

I believe it is a player control Charge.

I havn't looked at the rest of the replies yet.. I hope I'm right. ;)

No call?
http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/huhImage2.jpg

The original post doesn't specify whether or not the player catching the ball is in the air when the ball is caught. Does this make a difference on the ruling? The case play cited seems to make a distinction.

The OP states the defense set up "a few steps" away from the offense. Even if time and distance is required; it's met in the OP, as it can never require more than 2 steps.

That's called the "Earl Strom call". In his book, he says he would make that call. His rationalization was that if you call either a block or a charge, you're going to get one of the teams extremely upset with you, but if you call a travel, everyone's anger kind of deflates, no one gets charged with a foul and the penalty (a turnover) is not a big deal.

What a way to make a decision. However, he sure lasted a long time by doing stuff like this.