Is This Player Control?

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Atta boy kbilla, now you are getting the hang of it. We are going to make a top notch basketball official out of you yet.

MTD, Sr.

aw shucks thanks but i did have conflicting statements in my last post, i understand now why you are saying there is a pc foul, because the player did not attempt to guard/did not move into a guarding position. however, if the defender takes a step towards where the offensive player is dribbling, am i correct to say that THAT would be considered "guarding" so that even if the defender got there first, if they did not have LGP you have a block?

[rainmaker]

Okay, you asked about your other points so here goes....

Originally Posted by kbilla

I just re-read them again completely...by definition they don't appear a whole heck of a lot different, "legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent" vs. "legal action without contact that delays or prevents an opponent from obtaining a desired position".

I think the biggest difference is that screening is a "set" thing and guarding can be a moving thing.

Originally Posted by kbilla

what is different are the requirements for each, most applicable in this thread being that if you are screening there is no need to face the opponent, whereas you must be facing in order to obtain LGP.

and remember that guarding can involve movement where screeining is mainly a stand.

A[QUOTE=kbilla]re you drawing your difference from the fact that A1 didn't "move" into a guarding position, since he/she was already standing there you have a screen? That might be what he's aiming at. But you also need to remember that even if A1 moved, he might not need to conform to LGP. If they're both going for the rebound (which in the OP they were) they just need to maintain their own legal positions. If one moves into the other, that's the one that fouled.

Originally Posted by kbilla

What if A1 moved a step to his/her left and B1 slammed into A1's back, what do you have there?

see above.

Originally Posted by kbilla

As I posted much earlier, what if B1 saw that A1 was dribbling to a certain spot and B1 got there first with his/her back turned, do you have a pc foul if there is contact? .

I'd say if B1 appeared to be trying to stop the dribbler and just didn't get into position in time, then I'd call it a block. But if he was actually guarding someone else, and just happened to be there, of if he turned backward to shield himself from the contact, that's PC.

Originally Posted by kbilla

I realize that I may have been a bit too aggressive applying the guarding principle in the OP, I am just trying to see where you all draw the line....

That's a legitimate thing to do. The aggression will mellow with time.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by kbilla

however, if the defender takes a step towards where the offensive player is dribbling, am i correct to say that THAT would be considered "guarding" so that even if the defender got there first, if they did not have LGP you have a block?

If the defender is moving toward the dribbler, there is no time or distance required, and if he establishes his position before contact, it's PC.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

If the defender is moving toward the dribbler, there is no time or distance required, and if he establishes his position before contact, it's PC.

Correct no time or distance, but LGP is once you determine that you have a "defender"....thanks..

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Here we go again, I don't recall asking you for an evaluation, nor did I ask you to tell me how to call it. Why can't people on this board just go back and forth with good debate about interpretations without making stupid confrontational comments?

We try. (okay, to be clear, I try. I won't speak for others). However, let me say that your style of discourse on this board leaves me cold. You remind me of the guy (or gal) at camp who responds to every evaluation with "yeah, but ..."). It's not an IM chat; it's not a personal blog. Different "rules" apply here.

That said, obtaining LGP gives the defender additional rights (the right to move laterally). Not obtaining LGP doesn't take away the right to a spot; it just means that moving into the path of another player is more likely to be a foul.

In the OP, the defender (A1) didn't move into the spot; s/he had the spot first. Contact is the responsibitly of the offense (B1), even if A1 didn't have LGP.

[BillyMac]

From kbilla: "Why can't people on this board just go back and forth with good debate about interpretations without making stupid confrontational comments?"

Amen

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From kbilla: "Why can't people on this board just go back and forth with good debate about interpretations without making stupid confrontational comments?"

Amen

Then there would be only two people on the board and that would not be much fun now would it?

Peace

[BillyMac]

From JRutledge: "Then there would be only two people on the board and that would not be much fun now would it? Peace"

JRutledge: I agree. This Forum would not be as much fun and would probably be rather boring, however, I have a few reasons for wanting fewer impolite and confrontational threads and posts.

First, I would like people, not just officials, to act in a polite, civil manner, even when they stongly disagree with each other. I hope and pray that those Forum members who use a lot of impolite and confrontational language, do so because of the anonymity or the internet, and that they would, hopefully, be more polite, and civil, in a face-to-face, "real world" disagreement situation.

Also, I have found that impolite and confrontational language on this Forum often leads to more impolite and more confrontational language, which leads me to my third reason.

I value this Forum as an educational tool to help me improve my officiating. I waste lot of time "cutting through" the impolite and confrontational language on this Forum to get to the reason I visit this site every day, to educate myself and to improve my officiating.

P.S. Have you noticed that this Forum has gotten more polite and civil since Old School stopped posting?

[JRutledge]

Billy,

My post was sarcastic. I was not looking for a larger philosophy on life.

Peace

[Jimgolf]

Before I ever read a rulebook, I always thought that a foul was excessive contact, and that the foul would be charged to whoever is responsible for the contact. It seems to me that all the other rules about LGP and charging and screening only help to determine who (in legal terms) was responsible for the contact. So if you are guarding someone, and you have not established LGP, then you are responsible for the contact. Likewise, if you are setting a blind screen, and you do not allow for time and distance, then you are responsible for the contact. In this case we are talking about someone charging into a player not guarding him, so the player charging is responsible for the contact.

Is this too simplistic? I haven't gone through all the foul definitions trying to verify this thought, but I don't recall seeing any situations where this wouldn't apply. Or is this so vague that it's of little use?

I thought it might be a short hand way of explaining fouls to beginning players and their parents.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Before I ever read a rulebook, I always thought that a foul was excessive contact, and that the foul would be charged to whoever is responsible for the contact. It seems to me that all the other rules about LGP and charging and screening only help to determine who (in legal terms) was responsible for the contact. So if you are guarding someone, and you have not established LGP, then you are responsible for the contact. Likewise, if you are setting a blind screen, and you do not allow for time and distance, then you are responsible for the contact. In this case we are talking about someone charging into a player not guarding him, so the player charging is responsible for the contact.

Is this too simplistic? I haven't gone through all the foul definitions trying to verify this thought, but I don't recall seeing any situations where this wouldn't apply. Or is this so vague that it's of little use?

I thought it might be a short hand way of explaining fouls to beginning players and their parents.

I like your summary for the most part, with the exception of the word excessive. Contact need not be excessive to be a foul. It is more about whether the contact put the opponent at a disadvantage. Many times contact can be subtle and still provide the necessary space for a shot or a rebound. As far as I am concerned LGP is a term which is overrated. A player can have LGP and still commit a foul. A PC foul can be committed against a player who clearly does not have LGP. Verticality is much more of a safe haven. You stand still and hold your arms straight up, and if you foul out, the refs probably did "have your number."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Before I ever read a rulebook, I always thought that a foul was excessive contact, and that the foul would be charged to whoever is responsible for the contact.

Is this too simplistic?

Not only simplistic, but wrong.

Read NFHS rule 4-27, especially Art.2--"Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal offensive or defensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be SEVERE."

A simplistic but correct statement might actually be what the rulebook states in R4-19-1--i.e. a foul involves illegal contact.

[Adam]

I'm late to this one, but here's my two bits'.

1. Having LGP allows a player to move and still draw a foul. This is how we can call a pc foul when the defender is still moving. If a player is in the spot first, I don't care which direction he's facing.

2. There are, however, two instances when a player can be standing still with arms down, draw contact on his/her torso, and still be the one responsible for the contact. Blind screens and defenders with a foot out of bounds.