A friend & I have a disagreement about a PC foul when the defense is under the basket. I told him NFHS is different than NC2A or NBA.
I say it doesn't matter were the defense is as long as he/she has established a "legal" guarding position.

NFHS case book, pg30, 4.23.2: B1 jumps in front of dribbler A1 & obtains a legal guarding position with both feet touching & facing A1. Dribbler A1 contacts B1's torso. Ruling: PC on A1.
My friend says, "If B1 is under the basket there is no PC."
Of course, I know he is wrong but, this is only text I can find that would support my position.

Am I overlooking an area that would provide a better situation? Thanx

That's the only text you need. It's there, clear as day, in black and white.By rule, this is a PC foul. Whether an official chooses to call it that way or not, is up to him/her.

Let me guess. Your friend either is a howler monkey, or else he thinks Doug Collins is a great analyst.

Or both.

Yes. 10.6.1D

NCAA Men's is the same as NFHS and you are correct about having a legal guarding position anywhere on the court. NCAA Women's used to be the same as NCAA Men's, but Barb Jacobs (Rules Editor, NCAA Women's) made a very stupid interpretation without knowing what the rule book and casebook said about the matter (what do you expect from someone who never officiated a basketball game in her life). And know I am getting into a Dennis Miller rant, so I will end this posting.

You forgot to end the rant as Dennis does: "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ;)

Rarely is Dennis wrong.

Your self-restraint in not adding, "...and rarely am I wrong" is quite admirable. I will add it for you (taking your word for it about Dennis Miller):

Rarely is Dennis wrong, and very, very rarely is MTDenucci Sr wrong!!!

I thought I made a mistake once, but I was mistaken about making the mistake.

Maybe, just maybe Barb Jacobs made a very informed decision based on what is good for the game. Now, I don't know Ms. Jacobs, but that interpretation is consistent with the way the game gets called at the higher levels.

I know this powder keg has been set off once already, but I doubt that the interpretation was made without any investigation or forethought.

[Edited by stripes on Mar 13th, 2002 at 12:48 PM]

Hey Stripes,
I only do high school but am curious for my own knowledge, what was Ms. Jacob's interpetation?

Bottom line: Do what your supervisor wants you to do, not what <I>you</I> think is right.

The NCAA Women's ruling is that a player who is a secondary defender (help defense) may not take a "charge" directly under the basket UNLESS the offensive player is dribbling parallel to the baseline...a couple things to understand: 1)this ruling DOES NOT apply to the primary defender - in other words, if B3 picks up defense on A2 at the head of the key, establishes legal guarding position, is moving legally, etc., and gets plowed by A2 under the basket - that would be a PC foul...2)the parallel to the baseline provision is because the offensive player could be dribbling across the key for a reverse lay-in...3)the purpose is to stop weak-side or help defenders from stepping in late under the basket in hopes of drawing a PC foul...it eliminates some rough play and eliminates what many people - obviously not Mr. DeNucci - consider to be bad defense...hope this helps...

[Edited by rockyroad on Mar 13th, 2002 at 01:26 PM]

We hashed this GPS to death a couple of months ago, so all I have to say is,
AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH! !!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Seeing it in detail like this makes a big difference to me, as I sit here in the basement trying to concoct an opinion of someone I've never met in a situation I've never before thought about. She didn't just say, "No PC under the basket. Period." Hmmm, perhaps her interp deserves a little more consideration. I may end up disagreeing with her after that consideration, but I'm guessing she didn't go off half-cocked as I had been assuming.

Drake M:

Actually these various detailed situations were not what we hashed to death a couple of months ago. As described by rockyroad above, this is a very different ruling from what I had been assuming Eli Roe, crew, and stripes were talking about. This is not just any old defender under the basket at any old time, as in the NBA. I may still disagree with Barb Jacobs in the end, but it's good to see that she's not as far out to lunch as has been implied.

Just goes to show you that it is not necessarily what is said, but how it is reported that people tend to remember. Mr. DeNucci, obviously, does not like the interpretation, and his opinion of the interpretation taints his discussion of the issue, just like my acceptance of the ruling taints my posts. so, learn about what the basis of the discussions are and form your own opinions. The thing that I will say, and I believe it to be true, the further you go up the officiating ladder, the more this type of ruling is not only common, it is expected. If you are the only one calling it "by the book", in this case, you will not last long at that level.

I still disagree with this. After all, men's NCAA still doesn't give this ruling, and that's about as high as 99% of us could expect to go.

The best advice about this whole issue is, call it the way your supervisor wants it called, regardless of your personal opinion.

Call it like your supervisor wants it called is right, but you are wrong about the NCAA mens. It is not an "official" ruling, but it is the way that the play is called at that level. All of my friends, and partners, who call at that level have said this is how the play should be called.

Re: Raimaker's comment about NCAA not calling it that way. I get the impression that officially they have not changed the ruling but that in practice they don't seem to call a PC foul very often when the defender is under the basket. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right, Jay. And the NCAA implemented the "restricted area" as one of its experimental rules last season. My guess is that you'll see it officially adopted in the next 2-3 years. Just my guess, tho.

Chuck

Did not mean to open a can of worms (although my kids have been telling me it's time to get the fishing gear out) but being new to the forum I have not had the opportunity to have seen past discussions. Rockyroad thanks for the info, very clear and helpful.

Without going through my files, Barb Jacobs made a mid-season interpretation four school years ago regarding a defensive player under the basket. Her interpretation did not include the term secondary defender. Ms. Jacob's interpretation was not based upon the rules as they are written but was based on what coaches and fans think the rule is. The following school year, the rule book included her interpretation.

The Jacob's Interpretation (JI) was not based upon the rules. It was obvious that she did not know the definition of establishing a legal guarding position and I doubt if she knew the definition of screening either. The definition of establishing a legal guarding position (both H.S. and men's & women's college) has not changed over the years. There is no particular court position required. By definition, B1 can establish a legal guarding position against A1 and be 93 feet away from A1.

As an earlier poster has said, we have beat this play to death this school year and last school year too. And we will probably beat this play to death again next school year and the next and the next, ad nauseum.

The fact is that Barb Jacob's interpretation is not rule based but based upon what fans want and not upon how and why the rules are written.

The real problem is that Barb has never officiated and wants the women's game to be like the WNBA. If she wants the game to be like the WNBA she should go to work for the WNBA. I say that because of her interpretation of letting defensive players putting their hands on offensive players. Just go to the NBA/WNBA rules books, that section of the NCAA Women's rules book is straight out of the NBA/WNBA rules books.

It doesn't take much to open a can of worms around here, rcwilco. :)

Yeah - but how do you really feel about her? :D

Gee whiz, the further up the ladder one goes, one is too forget what the rules book says and just call it the way the fans and howler monkeys want it called. I real remember that the next time I design a building. I will just design it any old way I feel like, because I do not have to pay attention to design codes and requirements.

Gee whiz, the further up the ladder one goes, one is too forget what the rules book says and just call it the way the fans and howler monkeys want it called. I real remember that the next time I design a building. I will just design it any old way I feel like, because I do not have to pay attention to design codes and requirements. [/B][/QUOTE]

mark,
if it werent for the fans/coaches/players we wouldnt be here. they are the game. we are a neccessary evil. ever tried to play pick up ball and call your own fouls? every one argues. we are there to difuse conflicts and be firm but fair. basketball is entertainment. drawing a PC foul under the basket is not entertaining. seeing a 6"7' guy dunking/nuts in face is entertaining. that is what people want to see, players want to do, and coaches want to teach. seeing us wipe off this play and call PC is a good reason why no one in the world likes us. the game has advanced past the white boy basketball and is in the athletic age where players can do tremendous athletic/acrobatic moves. do the rules evolve as quickly as the game? unfortunately no. the rule discussed in this post is archaic and in need of change as well as other rules for the nc2a and fed imo. fortunately the nba/wnba and not far behind nc2a womens have adapted well to change and are making steps forward to improve the officiating of the game. nc2a could do well to adopt a few of the rules the nba has implemented and still keep the college rivalry/atmosphere. but, people who do not adapt well to change are the ones who keep the officiating to an evolutionary crawl instead of allowing it to adapt at a faster pace. remember the fans and players are the reason the game is played, not us. the rules should be made to please the audience, not us. naismith did not invent the game to give us a job.

now here is my disclaimer: take what i write and process it. like it you may do well to incorporate it. if you dislike it disregard it/ignore/ask the moderator to remove it, it is my opinion. i am a pro philosophy/advanced thinking type of official.

ps. you build a building that pleases the buyer-you put the bathroom where they want it or you are out of a job. do you not?

However, we as officials cannot change the rules just because we don't like them. There are several things that I don't like but I can't take it upon myself to call them contrary to the rule book. Until the rule is changed, it's wrong to tell a HS offical to call this play like the NBA/WNBA/NBDL does. Under NFHS rules, it's clear that this is a PC and it will continue to be until the rule is changed.

Not if the building code doesn't allow it! :)

As a structural engineer, I give the client what he/she wants, as long as it conforms to good engineering practice and is allowable by the applicable design codes. If what the client wants is not allowable by good engineering practice or applicable design codes, the client does not get what he/she wants and now engineer will design a building that does not conform to good engineering practice or applicable design codes. Ethics requires an engineer to give the client what he/she wants as look as it does not violate the two requirements stated above. Especially when designing structures the public safety out weighs the clients wishes and desires.

Moving on to something diferent (and my apologies to Monty Python).


I am going to assume, that anybody who reads this post can read the defintion of obtaining (NFHS)/establishing (NCAA Men's & Women's and FIBA) a legal guarding position. I will say this that the definition in all three rules books are the same. Therefore without further ado I will pose a question and will wait at least 24 hours before posting the correct answer. The question requires only a yes or no answer and one may also post his/her reason for his/her answer.

Play: A1 has possession of the ball for a designated spot throw-in on the endline (Table Side) in Team A's backcourt. A1 is being guarded by B1. A3 and A4 are in Team A's front court Opposite-the-Table, and are guarded by B3 and B4 respectively. A5 is in Team A's front court (Table Side) and is guarded by B5. A1 passes the ball to A2 who is standing under Team B's basket. B2 is standing under Team A's basket and is facing A2. Has B2 established a legal guarding position against A2?

Yes

No

Maybe?

Absolutely.

I agree with ChuckE.Maybe!It depends on whether B2 is in A2's path.If he is,it is a legal guarding position.If he isn't in A2's path,B2 does not have a legal guarding position.The post doesn't really specify whether B2 is in A2's path or not.

No. I hold that while 4-23-1 is not 100% specificly written to your question it holds in this case. Six foot is when guarding begins. Until then B2 is really just another player on the court.

mark,
the restricted area applies to secondary defenders. if the player taking a charge under the basket is a primary defender the restricted area is null and void.

hint: You might want to rethink you last two sentences.

hint: Closely guarded does not have anything to do with my question.

True but my point is that when one is standing a full court away form the dribbler than when does guarding start. As in, “established a legal guarding position”

Or am I missing the whole point of this?

hint: You might want to rethink you last two sentences. [/B][/QUOTE]You're right!I needed to re-read the sitch.I missed the part where they were under OPPOSITE baskets when I first read it.The answer now is yes,it's a legal guarding position(no minimum distance required).

Mark,
Yes, I believe B2 has obtained a legal guarding position in reference to A2. I wouldn't say it's a very good one.

I did not know that a legal guarding position could be classified as either a good one or bad one.