Is This Player Control?
 

A1 is shooting one FT while B1 is behind him and not lined up. FT is missed and tapped around toward A1. B1 performs an athletic move, jumps up and over A1 without touching him, secures the ball with both hands in the air, then comes down and fouls A1 in an "over the back" kind of way.

Both teams were in the bonus.

I called a player-control foul and we administered the ball out of bounds. A1 coach was a little upset that his player did not get to shoot the 1 and 1. I explained that B1 had control and that it was a player-control foul and it was not a shooting foul.

The book in 4-12-1 says "A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds." Question: In the above situation is A1 "inbounds" or does he have to come down and touch the floor to be considered inbounds?

Question: Was this a player control foul?

I thnk the recent interps on BC violation make it clear that B1 was in control, and this was a PC foul. (Not that I think they were really needed in this situation.)

I am a little confused by this situation. If B1 secured the ball and came down "over the back" of A1, how do you have a foul on B1? A1 had never obtained LGP (not facing B1)...tough to say without seeing the play, but I would think that I have nothing or a foul on A1 (probably nothing)?

You're overthinking the play big-time. It's a rebounding situation. LGP is neither applicable or relevant. Every player is entitled to have a legal spot on the floor. If you gain an illegal advantage by displacing that player from their spot, you've fouled them. It's no different than the player behind another player on a rebound pushing the player in front out his way. There's never LGP involved in 2 opponents going after a loose ball either. If one player gains an illegal advantage by shoving his opponent out of his way, he's committed a foul.

Sometimes a little knowledge can be dangerous.:)

Remember "you are where you were till you get where you're going". Since he was inbounds before he jumped, he's considered inbounds unless and until he lands OOB. So, since he was holding a live ball inbounds, he was in player control and his team was in team control. Whether or not a foul should have been called, since B1 never moved, is another story.

I agree with you re: the loose ball situation, but in this case the official called a PC foul. I guess I viewed this the same way as a ball handler running into a player who was standing with their back to the ball handler, do you have a PC foul on that also?

Yes. If you beat one defender off the dribble and then run into the back of a second defender who's been standing there forever, what else could you possibly call?

i have a block. i don't believe i have ever called or seen called a PC foul when the defender has his back to the ballhandler...4-7-2-a "a player is moving with the ball is required to stop or change direction to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained an LGP", doesn't say anything about having to avoid anyone who does not have LGP...then 4.23.2 defines LGP and includes that the "front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent"...

if the opponent has their back to the ball handler would you apply the same criteria as an opponent facing a ball handler to determine if you have a block/charge?

Case 10.6.9 discusses this further..

I agree with JR, I a player with control of the ball just runs over another player, its a Player Control Foul. The fact that the person has his or her back to the offensive player is irrelavent at this point.

How do you square that with the CB & RB references that I posted?

Those references talk about plays where the defender is TRYiING to guard or to stop the dribbler. When a player is trying to get his mommy's attention, or picking his nose, he's entitled to his spot on the floor. If he doesn't move, then the dribbler is completely responsible for contact, and if the dribbler displaces that defender, it's definitely PC.

ok i will grant you this point, if the defensive player has NO idea that the dribbler is there and he runs him over i will give you that it would be a PC. much more often than not you are going to have the case where the defensive player knows they are there but refuses to move, thereby in a sense "attempting to guard or stop the dribbler". what if a defender saw a dribbler moving towards a spot and decided to run to that spot and stop with his/her back to the dribbler. if there is contact you have a pc foul? that seems to me to be completely counter to CB 10.6.9...

If they get there first, it's PC foul. They're entitled to the spot. Period. Also, in block/charge, the LGP rules don't apply. Block/charge rules are spelled out in a different place.

(rummages to find books....) 10-6-2

If a player with the ball pushes off with with his arm, would you call a block on his opponent too using the same principles?

If two players go up for a rebound and the player behind pushes the opponent with inside position to get the ball , I take it that's a block in your world too?

Lah me.......

You're trying to apply guarding principles to non-guarding situations.

Absolutely not, a push off is specifically addressed in the rulebook..your second case is a push, there is no PC so I am obviously not applying a guarding principle there...how do you define a guarding situation?

4-23, and associated case book references.

Exactly and what does it say about a LGP? "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an opponent."...then goes on to what the defender must have to obtain an LGP (including facing the offensive player). "Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor provided they get there first and without illegally contacting an opponent"...having your back to the opponent is counter to LGP, so if it isn't a "legal position", it has to be an "illegal position" wouldn't it?

In the OP, once there is control, I would say that the defender put themselves in the path of the opponent with the ball, whether or not they were already there seems to be irrelavent in this case if the principles of an LGP are not there, I am applying 10.6.9. I will grant you this is a "tough foul" to take, but unless the offensive player came down and shoved the defender out of the way, I would have a block or no call, would have to see it...

In the OP the poor "defender" was just standing there, and was reached over as the other player grabbed the ball and came down on top of the "defender". How the heck is that moving into the path of the opponent? The person who got the ball didn't have it when they went up. "Devender" was just there. That's all. If the guy who goes up and gets control of the ball then comes down on top of the "defender" it's PC. WHo initiated contact? Who moved, and who didn't? It's not really this difficult.

A1 is shooting one FT while B1 is behind him and not lined up. FT is missed and tapped around toward A1. B1 performs an athletic move, jumps up and over A1 without touching him, secures the ball with both hands in the air, then comes down and fouls A1 in an "over the back" kind of way.

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?

I believe the issue is how each of us applies the "guarding" definition...the definition only says that a defender "puts themselves in the path", it doesn't say that they have to actively be doing anything....intentionally or not, A1 put him/herself in the path...from there it would seem that guarding principles would apply...

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.

You can't use your own definitions of the words. You have to go by how they are commonly interpreted. In the OP A didn't "put himself" in path of the guy with the ball. He just didn't. See it how you like. But if you called this play a block, you'll be laughed right out of your association. Even a no-call would be questionable in the OP. Whether you like it or not, that's how it's done.

What is the definition of a player control foul? It is a common foul committed by a play who is in control of the ball. That is what happened in this play. Not all player control fouls are charging fouls. If B1 did not have control of the ball and just jumped onto A1 to get the rebound, B1 would still be guilty of committing a common foul, not just a player control foul.

MTD, Sr.

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...

Why in the world would you call a block? A1 beats B1 and runs into B2 who has a legal position on the floor. Yes B2 is not guarding A1 but since he has a legal position on the court, he is considered to be setting a screen which A1 must go around without making illegal contact with B2.

MTD, Sr.

kbilla, look at the rulebook, reference 4-23-1 . There is a sentence right there that says, "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting the opponent." Also look at 10.6.1 Sit A in the case book. The A's and B's are backward from the OP, otherwise, it's the same play, and it's PC.

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.

10.6.9 says that A1 has established a straight line path. If there is a defender in this straight line, then a path was never established.

That is just the point all of us have been making. A1 has a legal position in front of B1. B1 jumps into A1's cylinder of verticality and makes contact with A1 and displaces A1. That is a common foul by B1. If B1 has control of the ball at the time of the foul, then the common foul by B1 is a player control foul. B1 did not make a great play; he went airborne in such a manner that made him land on top of A1 who had a legal position on the court prior to B1 going airborne. B1 has to have control of his body and in this play he did not.

MTD, Sr.

B2 is setting a screen? on defense?

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:

You are forgetting one thing, the guarding rules apply only to the five defensive players on the court AND the screening rules apply to all ten players (both defensive and offensive) players on the court including the player in control of the ball. AND the screening rules apply in the plays we have been discussing in the thread.

MTD, Sr.

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

See my post above (Post #33) and read the definition of screening.

MTD, Sr.

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

MTD, Sr.

I got some sad news for you. You're the only one here that's trying to apply guarding principles to situations that have absolutely nothing to do with guarding. You're doing that because you don't understand the basic concepts used in the <b>different</b> situations.

Here's A1 a t the line. He shoots the FT, it bounces off the rim back toward A1. He reaches up to catch the ball, but B1 is up there already and takes the ball. Now as B1 comes down onto A1, A1 has to move out of B1's way, or get called for a block?? Is that what you're saying?

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.

"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"?

... 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!

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.

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.

Where does this term appear in the books?



It's working.

And remember that the defender might be doing something that is neither screening nor guarding.

Yup, I'm getting good!:D

Honestly if a1 was just standing there doing nothing, you're right I couldn't have a block, I think I was trying to picture a situation that maybe wasn't in the OP...that being said I think this thread has evolved into a wider discussion about guarding and when someone is guarding vs. not and i think some have a much narrower interp of what "guarding" is than i...

He might be contemplating the universe and his life situation and thinking to himself over and over: I'm so glad I'm not a woman.

Well, then he's an idiot and he should be plowed. If I see someone contemplating that, the dribbler can just tackle him, for all I care.

You can tell he's contemplating that by looking?

That's why he's an idiot. Who wouldn't want that kind of instinct?

MTD -- Isn't there a sentence somewhere in the rule book about responsibility for contact being on the player who's behind the other? I seem to remember someting about that, but I can't find it.

I have nothing further to add. Where's Padgett when you need him?

Juulie:

Yes there is. But I can't remember if it is in the guarding or screening rules. I really shouldn't be online since I have a bad head cold and my family wouldn't let me go to our sons' swim meet this afternoon so I could stay home and rest. So here I am very bored and making posts. LOL

MTD, Sr.

4-27-5: ...if, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

Bored on the board?? lol

I'm camping on the board a lot lately, staying home a lot, not feeling real well. I'm finding it bracing and uplifting arguing with people. Especially when I'm right. It's not so much fun when I turn out to be wrong!!

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

Kbilla in the OP the guy who shot the ft and then got fouled was neither screening nor guarding, but he had a legal position on the floor which was violated by the opponent who came down on top of him. It wasn't a block, because the player in front wasn't blocking. and it was PC because the player behind initiated contact, and caused the contact illegally.

ok, point conceded, what about the other sections of my last post?

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?

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

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

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.

see above.

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.

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

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..

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.

Amen
 

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

Fun Forum
 

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?

Billy,

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

Peace

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."

Not only simplistic, but wrong.

Read NFHS rule 4-27, especially Art.2--<i>"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, <b>even though the contact may be SEVERE</b>."</i>

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

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.