What's the call in this instance.....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

imo, can't have a "no call" here....the contact affected the play causing the ball to go out of bounds. gotta have something!
based on what you've described, I'm probably calling a blocking foul. sounds like the defender established legal gaurding position, but did not move to maintain LGP as the offensive player moved. block!

if you don't like the block call, then ask yourself this....did the offensive player create/gain an advantage as the result of his contact w/ the defender? (because that is basically what a charge/offensive foul is, right?...)

Seems to be a lot of contradiction here. The defender is entitled to a spot on the floor. If he was there and did not move, no way is it a blocking foul. Did the offensive player gain an advantage by the contact which he apparently created. No, he simply lost the ball out of bounds. No foul call is necessary.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Seems to be a lot of contradiction here. The defender is entitled to a spot on the floor. If he was there and did not move, no way is it a blocking foul. Did the offensive player gain an advantage by the contact which he apparently created. No, he simply lost the ball out of bounds. No foul call is necessary.

Wouldn't your logic of "offense caused the contact because the defense didn't move" negate the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Spence

Wouldn't your logic of "offense caused the contact because the defense didn't move" negate the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault?

What rule is that?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by jdmara

...It's all relative to time, distance, and initiation of contact....

Not entirely true. NFHS 4-23-4 "Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position."

When guarding a (non-airborne) player with the ball, all that is required is for the guard to get to his spot legally first. If he does this, it's his spot. No time or distance required.

Originally Posted by jeffpea

imo, can't have a "no call" here....the contact affected the play causing the ball to go out of bounds. gotta have something!

based on what you've described, I'm probably calling a blocking foul. sounds like the defender established legal gaurding position, but did not move to maintain LGP as the offensive player moved. block!

if you don't like the block call, then ask yourself this....did the offensive player create/gain an advantage as the result of his contact w/ the defender? (because that is basically what a charge/offensive foul is, right?...)

There is no legal requirement for a guard to move to maintain LGP. If the guard chooses not to move, he is still entitled to the spot he legally occupied first.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Tripping over someone's foot is likely because that foot is outside the cylinder that each person is entitled to. Brushing an opponent likely means that contact was on the outside edge of the shoulder. You would have to decide if the contact on the shoulder warrants a PC foul (highly unlikely), or the possible foot-outside-the-cylinder contact caused a block (more likely).
...
If the contact was the legal body position, I have a no call. If the contact was the illegal foot position, I have a blocking foul.

Exactly. If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, then he has not gotten to the spot legally first.

NFHS 4-23 "...A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, he has extended his leg. In this situation it would seem that the extended leg is in the path of the opponent.

Obviously a HTBT, but the principles are pretty clear cut I think.

As always, just my $0.02.

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Not entirely true. NFHS 4-23-4 "Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position."

When guarding a (non-airborne) player with the ball, all that is required is for the guard to get to his spot legally first. If he does this, it's his spot. No time or distance required.

There is no legal requirement for a guard to move to maintain LGP. If the guard chooses not to move, he is still entitled to the spot he legally occupied first.

Exactly. If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, then he has not gotten to the spot legally first.

NFHS 4-23 "...A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, he has extended his leg. In this situation it would seem that the extended leg is in the path of the opponent.
Obviously a HTBT, but the principles are pretty clear cut I think.

As always, just my $0.02.

BITS...is the part bolded above out of the NFHS book? I'm just curious. You didn't wrap " " around it so I'm wondering if that is your interp or NFHS interp. If the defender is in his spot, not moving and the offensive player hits him(as noted) how is he extending a leg? He was there in his position....

A lot of guys are in LGP with their feet wider than shoulders applying on ball pressure....I've had plenty of PC calls on the perimeter where the guard was plowed through, moving their feet to stay in front of the ball. I wouldn't necessarily consider feet wider than shoulders not beating a guy to the spot or extending a leg.

I'm just having a hard time with your posting....

As posted, I'm probably going with a no-call and ball OOB.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Coltdoggs

BITS...is the part bolded above out of the NFHS book? I'm just curious. You didn't wrap " " around it so I'm wondering if that is your interp or NFHS interp. If the defender is in his spot, not moving and the offensive player hits him(as noted) how is he extending a leg? He was there in his position....

A lot of guys are in LGP with their feet wider than shoulders applying on ball pressure....I've had plenty of PC calls on the perimeter where the guard was plowed through, moving their feet to stay in front of the ball. I wouldn't necessarily consider feet wider than shoulders not beating a guy to the spot or extending a leg.

I'm just having a hard time with your posting....

As posted, I'm probably going with a no-call and ball OOB.

You are correct that a player can have LGP with the feet wider than the shoulders. And the feet being wider than the shoulders doesn't matter if the contact is in the torso...but it does matter if the contact is with the extended limb.

I believe he is only saying that it should be a block (if a foul is warranted) if the feet are wider than the shoulders AND the only contact is with the part of the foot/leg that is beyond the shoulders.

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You are correct that a player can have LGP with the feet wider than the shoulders. And the feet being wider than the shoulders doesn't matter if the contact is in the torso...but it does matter if the contact is with the extended limb.

I believe he is only saying that it should be a block (if a foul is warranted) if the feet are wider than the shoulders AND the only contact is with the part of the foot/leg that is beyond the shoulders.

Cam, I agree with what you posted.

As it relates to the OP...I don't see how we can penalize the D if he's stationary, feet wider than shoulders and the contact is created by the ball handler hitting his shoulders even if he had his head and shoulders past the D....which is one major criteria used to determine block/PC. I think the key here is stationary.

Good conversation on this...

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You are correct that a player can have LGP with the feet wider than the shoulders. And the feet being wider than the shoulders doesn't matter if the contact is in the torso...but it does matter if the contact is with the extended limb.

I believe he is only saying that it should be a block (if a foul is warranted) if the feet are wider than the shoulders AND the only contact is with the part of the foot/leg that is beyond the shoulders.

Yep, that was what I was saying.