Is This Player Control?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by kbilla

But if you determine that the player didn't commit a foul in obtaining control of the ball, then how can you not just as easily say the "poor offensive player" made a great play and just landed and someone got in his/her way?

You can try. But you won't ever move up if that's how you read the OP. If he comes down on someone who was just standing there, (didn't "get in the way"), it's a foul pure and simple. It's not a great play, it's a foul

. Look at the OP. The person who got fouled didn't move to get in front of the person with the ball. He was just standing there, because he'd just shot the ball. He may have reached up or even jumped up to try to get the ball, but that doesn't mean he's "guarding". IT means he was going for the ball. He's allowed to "maintain his spot" if he jumps straight up. His spot goes all the way to the ceiling. WHen B reached into A's spot to get the ball it was legal until there was contact, then it became B's foul. Since he had control of the ball, it was a PC foul.

The way this play is called is PC foul. You don't discuss this, except to understand it so you can do it correctly. It's just the way it is.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You can try. But you won't ever move up if that's how you read the OP. If he comes down on someone who was just standing there, (didn't "get in the way"), it's a foul pure and simple. It's not a great play, it's a foul

. Look at the OP. The person who got fouled didn't move to get in front of the person with the ball. He was just standing there, because he'd just shot the ball. He may have reached up or even jumped up to try to get the ball, but that doesn't mean he's "guarding". IT means he was going for the ball. He's allowed to "maintain his spot" if he jumps straight up. His spot goes all the way to the ceiling. WHen B reached into A's spot to get the ball it was legal until there was contact, then it became B's foul. Since he had control of the ball, it was a PC foul.

The way this play is called is PC foul. You don't discuss this, except to understand it so you can do it correctly. It's just the way it is.

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?

What if B1 had come to the floor and taken a dribble right into A1 who still had his/her back turned and you have contact, what do you have then? A1 is still "just standing there", do you consider that they are "guarding" yet?

All I am saying is that this case is not as cut and dry as you seem to make it IMO. Let's just agree to disagree. I know you're not going to recommend me to work the state finals now, I guess I'll just have to live with that...

[rainmaker]

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?.

Because it's not a "good debate about interpretations". There are common ways that this play is called, and you don't like them. That's you being difficult, not discussion.

You asked "why can't..." and "what if..." so I told you why you can't and what would happen if. You can disagree if you want to. I'm not the one that'll lose games because of your wrong calls.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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?

What if B1 had come to the floor and taken a dribble right into A1 who still had his/her back turned and you have contact, what do you have then? A1 is still "just standing there", do you consider that they are "guarding" yet?

All I am saying is that this case is not as cut and dry as you seem to make it IMO. Let's just agree to disagree. I know you're not going to recommend me to work the state finals now, I guess I'll just have to live with that...

In your play in your second paragraph above, A1 is definitely not guarding B1, BUT, A1 does have a legal position on the court and had set a legal screen against B1. Therefore, B1 just avoid contact with A1 and in your play B1 has committed a common foul which in this case a player control foul.

MTD, Sr.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In your play in your second paragraph above, A1 is definitely not guarding B1, BUT, A1 does have a legal position on the court and had set a legal screen against B1. Therefore, B1 just avoid contact with A1 and in your play B1 has committed a common foul which in this case a player control foul.

MTD, Sr.

what would A1 have to do to switch from "screening" to "guarding"?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by kbilla

what would A1 have to do to switch from "screening" to "guarding"?

Read the definition of guarding and you will find the answer to your queation.

MTD, Sr.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Read the definition of guarding and you will find the answer to your queation.

MTD, Sr.

"the act of legally placing the body in the path of an opponent"...so what does that mean to you? does that mean there has to be actual "movement" into the path? in your opinion, when in my example does A1 begin "guarding" vs. "screening"?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by kbilla

"the act of legally placing the body in the path of an opponent"...so what does that mean to you? does that mean there has to be actual "movement" into the path? in your opinion, when in my example does A1 begin "guarding" vs. "screening"?

Screening and guarding aren't the only two possible actions for a player to be committing. He might be looking at the cheerleaders, trying to remember where he is supposed to go if the ball goes into the basket, looked at the clock to calculate how late he'll be for his date. He might be waiting for his teammate to approach so they can set a trap. He might be concentrating on not drifting out toward the sideline. All of these actions give him the right ot stand on his spot on the floor without an opponent slamming into him.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by kbilla

"the act of legally placing the body in the path of an opponent"...so what does that mean to you? does that mean there has to be actual "movement" into the path? in your opinion, when in my example does A1 begin "guarding" vs. "screening"?

kbilla:

Please read completely the two sections in Rule 4 that cover guarding and screening. Then tell me what what are the differences between guarding and screening, especially how a player obtains a legal guarding position and how a player sets a screen. As JR said in a post above, you are confusing guarding principles with screening principles. AND, yes defensive players can set screens. Read the definition of screening.

Remember, if a player has legally gained a position on the court, he can stand there the entire game. And if he never moves from that position the entire game and an opponent runs into him, guess what, his opponent has committed a foul against him.

MTD, Sr.

[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

[just another ref]

Bottom line: If a player is standing still and his arms are not extended, it is impossible for him to commit a foul, regardless of which way anyone is facing.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line: If a player is standing still and his arms are not extended, it is impossible for him to commit a foul, regardless of which way anyone is facing.

... it is impossible for him to be responsible for contact. He could still commit a T for unsportsmanlike vocabulary. I'm just trying to be consistently obnoxious!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

... it is impossible for him to be responsible for contact. He could still commit a T for unsportsmanlike vocabulary.

Where does this term appear in the books?

I'm just trying to be consistently obnoxious!

It's working.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where does this term appear in the books?
It's working.

Yup, I'm getting good!

[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.