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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What if one of the defender's feet was OOB?

Aw, c'mon, you knew I had to ask.

Before anyone actually answers this, be sure to read every page of:
Block / Charge Situation

I don't know if I can handle an 18 page discussion after all of the A-11 craziness in the football forum.

[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...

[zebra44]

I have a no call. The way I view it, there is a difference between tripping and being tripped. JMHO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by zebra44

There is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

Rookie officials, please make a note of this statement. Easy to understand, simple, and a pretty good interpretation.

[Adam]

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?...)

I agree with no offensive foul here. I do not agree with a block on a stationary B1. He gained his initial LGP, and did nothing to lose it. Why does he have to move to maintain it? Why can't he stand still and keep it?

Unless B1 is standing in an unnatural position (feet spread further than shoulder width), this is a no-call. If B1 looks like he's about to do the splits, then it's a block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coltdoggs

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...

He's entitled to his spot on the floor, by spreading his feet out he's taking up more than he's entitled to.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What if one of the defender's feet was OOB?

Aw, c'mon, you knew I had to ask.

Before anyone actually answers this, be sure to read every page of:
Block / Charge Situation

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

We've got a rope
We've got a tree
All we need is a
Referee.

And you just volunteered.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I kinda felt like doing some swingin' tonight.

Hey, wait a minute...

Sheesh! I have my first game of the season (first game since early January), and you guys go and have fun like this? I'm shocked!

BTW, I'm sticking with a no-call followed by an OOB call.

[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.

[amusedofficial]

Geez. After months of lurking I actually had to register on this one, to ask two questions.

1. What rule refers to "the cylinder that each person is entitled to" This sounds like ESPN-speak.

2. Similiarly, I am unable to find "the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault"

Kind of eerie that a site that regularly posts "misunderstood rules" would see postings from people who should know better inventing rules that aren't in the book. But then perhaps the "torso rule" and the "cylinder rule" are on the same page as "reach" and "over the back" fouls, and I haven't gotten to that page yet.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the defender is there minding his own business, he can be doing the splits, and if he does not move, it isn't a blocking foul.

Do you even read the rules before you shoot your mouth off?

10-6-1 . . .

A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Geez. After months of lurking I actually had to register on this one, to ask two questions.

1. What rule refers to "the cylinder that each person is entitled to" This sounds like ESPN-speak.

2. Similiarly, I am unable to find "the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault"

1. Not a rule, a concept. BITS quotes the basis from 4-23; a player does not have legal position if his foot is extended, his arm is extended, etc, no matter how long he's held it there. It's just like if B1 had been standing in the lane with his arms held out straight to the sides since February; if A1 comes in and tries to run by B1 only to catch an arm in the neck, it's a foul on B1 no matter how long he's held the pose.
2. Not a rule, but a rule of thumb; not applicable to a stationary defender who is standing in a legal position. Completely applicable (as a rule of thumb) to a moving defender with LGP; and definitely the rule if a the contact is with an extended limb.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

10-6-1 . . .

A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

I think JAR is thinking about the case play, which I can't find at the moment , that says a player who lying on the floor is entitled to that spot and if the dribbler trips over him, it's not a foul on the defender.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think JAR is thinking about the case play, which I can't find at the moment , that says a player who lying on the floor is entitled to that spot and if the dribbler trips over him, it's not a foul on the defender.

That was the general idea. Someone referred to the cylinder each player was entitled to and not having a foot outside the shoulder. I was saying that assuming any position does not necessarily make one guilty of the foul. Defender hustling back slips and goes down. Offensive player behind him trips over his extended limb. This is not a blocking foul. Nevada is trying to help me understand things, every chance he gets.