The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 10:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Point #4 on Block/Charge...
"B. Guarding a player with the Ball.
4) When an offensive player receives a long pass with his/her back turned and places one foot on the floor and crashes into a legally set defender, it is a player-control foul. It seems many officials are calling this a traveling violation, which is incorrect"

I have two questions about this:
1) Is the "places one foot on the floor" part important? If the offensive player crashes into the legal defender while in the air is this a block because the defender didn't allow space? I assume not since above it says "Guarding a player with the ball... time and space are of no consequence". Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
2) I am having trouble understanding why they decided to mention that many officials seem to be calling this traveling. Depending on the situation this could be called a multitude of different ways. I wish they would have expanded on why it specifically isn't a traveling violation. By wording it this way I have more questions than answers.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 10:33am
Ch1town
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
I have two questions about this:
1) Is the "places one foot on the floor" part important?
Absolutely, because placing one foot on the floor & crashing into the defender is not a travel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
If the offensive player crashes into the legal defender while in the air is this a block because the defender didn't allow space? I assume not since above it says "Guarding a player with the ball... time and space are of no consequence". Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
It all depends... did the offensive or defensive player violate verticality?
I think it should be a block as the defender has to allow the player to land after catching the ball in the air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
2) I am having trouble understanding why they decided to mention that many officials seem to be calling this traveling. Depending on the situation this could be called a multitude of different ways. I wish they would have expanded on why it specifically isn't a traveling violation. By wording it this way I have more questions than answers.
As you previously stated, in this partaicular sitch "one foot on the floor" prior to crashing into the defender is the key. Sometimes they land, turn & see the defender, get nervous & actually travel. I guess some officials were going with the travel as opposed to the PC no matter what happened prior to contact.

Last edited by Ch1town; Wed May 20, 2009 at 10:36am.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 10:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town View Post
Absolutely, because placing one foot on the floor & crashing into the defender is not a travel.
Seems silly to me that they are emphasizing the "one foot on the ground" for this sole purpose but perhaps you're right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town View Post
It all depends... did the offensive or defensive player violate verticality?
I think it should be a block as the defender has to allow the player to land after catching the ball in the air.
I disagree. If the defender has the spot before the offensive player jumps to receive the pass then the onus is on the offense to avoid contact whether he/she lands before contact or not. This is why I was asking if the "one foot on the floor" part was the operative here.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 10:59am
Ch1town
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
I disagree. If the defender has the spot before the offensive player jumps to receive the pass then the onus is on the offense to avoid contact whether he/she lands before contact or not.
In that particular sitch you are absolutely right
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 11:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town View Post
In that particular sitch you are absolutely right
OK, I should have read between the lines of your post. Thanks for the help.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
"B. Guarding a player with the Ball.
4) When an offensive player receives a long pass with his/her back turned and places one foot on the floor and crashes into a legally set defender, it is a player-control foul. It seems many officials are calling this a traveling violation, which is incorrect"

I have two questions about this:
1) Is the "places one foot on the floor" part important? If the offensive player crashes into the legal defender while in the air is this a block because the defender didn't allow space? I assume not since above it says "Guarding a player with the ball... time and space are of no consequence". Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
2) I am having trouble understanding why they decided to mention that many officials seem to be calling this traveling. Depending on the situation this could be called a multitude of different ways. I wish they would have expanded on why it specifically isn't a traveling violation. By wording it this way I have more questions than answers.
1) Yes, the part about placing the foot on the floor is important for the very reason you mentioned. Once A1 has the ball and has returned to the floor, it is their responsiblility to avoid contact with a defender that has legal guarding position. However, if A1 was still in the air, the defender must either have gotten to the spot before A1 was in the air, or allow A1 time and distance to stop and/or change direction.
2) Many offiicials use the travel as a "bailout" call in this situation. You are correct that there could be a number of different calls, based upon the specific situation. Sometimes A1 will end up shuffling their feet when they finally see the defender right before contact, so a travel could be the correct call. But for the most part the official has to make block/charge decision. Was the defender guarding a player with or without the ball when A1 went airborne? Did they establish LGP, and if so, was it before or after A1 left the floor? Had A1 returned to the floor before contact? Was time/distance a factor, or not? (Oh...never mind...if I call a travel one team's happy with the turnover, while the other team's happy they didn't get a foul charged to them.) That's what the committee is addressing - see the play and make the proper call, rather than trying to take the easy way out with the "bailout" call.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 11:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy View Post
1) Yes, the part about placing the foot on the floor is important for the very reason you mentioned. Once A1 has the ball and has returned to the floor, it is their responsiblility to avoid contact with a defender that has legal guarding position. However, if A1 was still in the air, the defender must either have gotten to the spot before A1 was in the air, or allow A1 time and distance to stop and/or change direction.
2) Many offiicials use the travel as a "bailout" call in this situation...
Very well explained M&M. Now I see the importance of the foot on the floor. So if I understand you correctly, time and distance is a factor in the situation where contact occurs before the offense returns to the floor because the offense didn't have the ball when they jumped and it's a "guarding a player without the ball" situation until he/she establishes possession on the floor. Correct?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 11:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
Very well explained M&M. Now I see the importance of the foot on the floor. So if I understand you correctly, time and distance is a factor in the situation where contact occurs before the offense returns to the floor because the offense didn't have the ball when they jumped and it's a "guarding a player without the ball" situation until he/she establishes possession on the floor. Correct?
That is the way I read the rule. There might be others that disagree, given the fact A1 now has the ball, their status changed at that moment, even in mid-air.

Either way, you see how all this information must be processed in that instant, and the reason some officials simply call the travel instead to avoid making that decision.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 11:18am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
I actually disagree based on the logic M&M gives. Once the player gains the ball, time and distance are not a factor.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 11:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
I actually disagree based on the logic M&M gives. Once the player gains the ball, time and distance are not a factor.
Once I went back and read that rulebook thingy, I would both agree and disagree with you. The rule actually reads the same for guarding an airborne player either with (4-23-4b) or without (4-23-5d) the ball. Either way, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. So once the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor. However, before the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor either.

So, I will amend my original statement somewhat and take out the part about time and distance on the airborne player. But it still doesn't change the reason for the initial comment on having the foot back down on the ground - no time and distance is required for the guard, as opposed to the guard needing to be in the spot before A1 went airborne.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 12:58pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy View Post
Once I went back and read that rulebook thingy, I would both agree and disagree with you. The rule actually reads the same for guarding an airborne player either with (4-23-4b) or without (4-23-5d) the ball. Either way, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. So once the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor. However, before the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor either.

So, I will amend my original statement somewhat and take out the part about time and distance on the airborne player. But it still doesn't change the reason for the initial comment on having the foot back down on the ground - no time and distance is required for the guard, as opposed to the guard needing to be in the spot before A1 went airborne.
pesky rules. good grief.
I was thinking of the case when the airborne player puts a foot on the floor just prior to contact.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2009, 06:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
"B. Guarding a player with the Ball.
4) When an offensive player receives a long pass with his/her back turned and places one foot on the floor and crashes into a legally set defender, it is a player-control foul. It seems many officials are calling this a traveling violation, which is incorrect"

I have two questions about this:
1) Is the "places one foot on the floor" part important? If the offensive player crashes into the legal defender while in the air is this a block because the defender didn't allow space? I assume not since above it says "Guarding a player with the ball... time and space are of no consequence". Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
It is included because the NFHS states unequivocally that this is a block.
In order to definitely state that, it is necessary to know that the offensive player with the ball to returned at least one foot to the floor prior to the contact occurring. If the contact occurs before either foot comes down, then we don't have enough information to decide whether PC or blocking is correct because we need to know whether the defender obtained a legal position on the court PRIOR to the opponent going airborne. That is what the call will depend upon in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcof83 View Post
2) I am having trouble understanding why they decided to mention that many officials seem to be calling this traveling. Depending on the situation this could be called a multitude of different ways. I wish they would have expanded on why it specifically isn't a traveling violation. By wording it this way I have more questions than answers.
The NFHS is against using traveling as a bail-out call in such plays as M&M has correctly articulated. I know that the PAC-10 was actually teaching to call it that way a few years ago!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recent rules changes and POEs please refboss Basketball 16 Sun Nov 02, 2008 07:13am
POEs for 06-07 season lmeadski Basketball 2 Mon Jul 17, 2006 07:24pm
D3K Explained To A Coach - Letter One whiskers_ump Softball 3 Mon Apr 04, 2005 09:26am
Travelling Explained rgaudreau Basketball 2 Sun Feb 13, 2005 08:41am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1