The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Player Control Foul (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/50788-player-control-foul.html)

jref Thu Jan 08, 2009 02:59pm

Player Control Foul
 
If the defender is back pedallng, but his torso is squared up to the dribbler.The dribbler runs into the defender and knocks him over. Is this player control or does the defender have to be set.

just another ref Thu Jan 08, 2009 03:11pm

If the defender is backing up, meaning away from the dribbler, and the dribbler runs into him and knocks him over, it is player control whether the torso was squared up or not.

pizanno Thu Jan 08, 2009 03:13pm

does not have to be set

ma_ref Thu Jan 08, 2009 03:15pm

Another common misconception by coaches. "How can that be PC? The defender was moving!"

Adam Thu Jan 08, 2009 03:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ma_ref (Post 566232)
Another common misconception by coaches. "How can that be PC? The defender was moving!"

"Sure he was. He was running from your big man."

M&M Guy Thu Jan 08, 2009 03:38pm

4-23-3(c) is what you need.

(Now, what I need is another weekend.)

jevaque Thu Jan 08, 2009 03:53pm

what if your feet are set and your back is toward the offender ??

M&M Guy Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:00pm

4-23-3(b) and 4-23-3(e) tell you the player does not need to face their opponent. And, 4-23-3(c) and 4-23-3(d) tell you the player's feet do not need to be set, either.

jevaque Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:05pm

to obtain you need to be set but you dont need to be set to maintain

Adam Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jevaque (Post 566274)
to obtain you need to be set but you dont need to be set to maintain

Wrong. to obtain, both feet need to be on the floor at the same time while facing the opponent. Being "set" is not required, as a player may be moving and meet the requirements.

Also, if a player is not moving, LGP is irrelevant (thus he may draw a charge with his back to the offensive player.)

jdmara Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:09pm

If the defender has established and maintained legal guarding position, it would be a player control foul.

-Josh

just another ref Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 566277)
Also, if a player is not moving, LGP is irrelevant (thus he may draw a charge with his back to the offensive player.)

If a player is moving, LGP can still be irrelevant. B1 jogging up the court.
Dribbler A1 runs up his back. PC foul

Adam Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 566284)
If a player is moving, LGP can still be irrelevant. B1 jogging up the court.
Dribbler A1 runs up his back. PC foul

Good point.

Adam Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmara (Post 566282)
If the defender has established and maintained legal guarding position, it would be a player control foul.

-Josh

As jar mentioned, if the defender is pedaling straight backward, I'm not convinced he needs to have established LGP.

mbyron Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:05am

I think that a lot of officials still call a block on the grounds that they put the "burden of proof" on the defender: if he's not stock still, it's a block. It's just easier (but lazy) to call it that way. I see a lot of guys who call it that way.

I think that the perception is changing, though. Many folks still think that the defender has to be set, but they are also looking at who initiates the contact.

Over time, the following dialogue might seep into the coach/player/fan head: "He was moving!" -- "True, but he had LGP and your player initiated the contact."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1