Defensive player under the offensive basket.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am not going to list any rules or casebook references, but instead give my usual $50 lecture as to why the NCAA Women’s interpretation is wrong. But before I go into detail let me make a few statements regarding the definitions of a legal guarding position and a closely guarded player with the ball.


First, until recently the verb establish was used by NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA. Through the tireless efforts of Ed Ferrigno (retired IAABO Connecticut Interpreter), the NFHS changed the verb establish to the verb obtain. When the NFHS made the change, the Rules Committee said that the change would not change any interpretations and that the NFHS and NCAA would still be considered identical.

Second, the closely guarded player in control of the ball definition has nothing to do with obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position. This is a definition that deals with a violation by the player in control of the ball. The NFHS and NCAA definition requires the defensive player to be in a legal guarding position within six feet of the player in control of the ball and FIBA states the distance is to be defined as one normal step (not more than one meter).


Here again is the play that I posted yesterday:

Play 1: A1 has possession of the ball for a designated spot throw-in on the end line (Table Side) in backcourt. A1 is being guarded by B1. A3 and A4 (Opposite-the-Table) and A5 (Table Side) are in Team A’ frontcourt. A3, A4, and A5 are guarded by B3, B4, and B5 respectively. 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 obtained/established a legal guarding position against A2?


The correct answer to the play is yes. What does this answer imply?

Lets look at one possible play:

Play 2: A2 starts to dribble straight down the court toward his/her basket. B2 never moves from his/her position on the court. A2 goes airborne, releases the ball on a successful field goal attempt and then charges into B2 before touching the court. NCAA Men’s Rules: (1) If A2 makes contact before the ball becomes dead, the field goal attempt is counted, if Team B is in the bonus, B2 shoots free throws, and if Team B is not in the bonus, Team B gets possession of the ball for a throw-in along the end line in its backcourt with the right to run the end line. (2) If the contact by A2 is after the ball becomes dead the contact is ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant and then it is treated as a dead ball technical foul. NFHS Rules: It does not matter whether the contact is before the ball becomes dead or after the ball becomes dead, A2 has committed a player control foul and the field goal attempt by A2 does not count. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in closest to the spot of the foul. But NCAA Women’s Rules poses a problem for the calling official. Barb Jacobs everyone to think that B2 was not playing defense. But B2 was playing defense. The position that B2 took on the court required A2 to make a decision: Can A2 attempt a lay up (high percentage shoot) and risk making illegal contact with B2 or pull up short of B2 and attempt a jump shoot (lesser percentage shoot) and not risk making illegal contact with B2?

There is no way that the contact by A2 against B2 in Play 2 can be ignored under NCAA Women’s Rules. Barb Jacob’s made her interpretation during the middle of the 1999-2000 season using the reasoning of coaches and fans, coaches and fans who do not have a clue as to what the rule is regarding the establishing a legal guarding position. I am not advocating to ignore the rules and casebook interpretations, but the people who really know what is in the rules book and casebook and know and understand the whys and hows of officiating need to speak up when nonsense like this comes out of the Rules Committees.

I am done ranting.