Don't Hit Me!!!

[bainsey]

This is hard to call without seeing it.

The defender is allowed to turn or duck to brace himself for impact, and still maintain LGP. But, back-pedalling? I take that to mean moving straight back, and I can't see how one can maintain LGP going straight back (except to brace, as mentioned).

Laterally, yes. Obliquely, yes. Straight back, how?

[tref]

If the defender is backpedalling, how could he/she initiate the contact?

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This is hard to call without seeing it.

The defender is allowed to turn or duck to brace himself for impact, and still maintain LGP. But, back-pedalling? I take that to mean moving straight back, and I can't see how one can maintain LGP going straight back (except to brace, as mentioned).

Laterally, yes. Obliquely, yes. Straight back, how?

Once LGP has been established there are only 3 ways to lose it:
1) defender out of bounds
2) defender moves toward offensive player
3) offense gets head and shoulders past front of torso

By the description none of these happened. PC.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This is hard to call without seeing it.

The defender is allowed to turn or duck to brace himself for impact, and still maintain LGP. But, back-pedalling? I take that to mean moving straight back, and I can't see how one can maintain LGP going straight back (except to brace, as mentioned).

Laterally, yes. Obliquely, yes. Straight back, how?

Did you read the rule?

[ABC Coach]

I even doubted myself after I made the call...but like I said...I'm not used to seeing guys backpedal in that situation. One of those strange looking plays that left me scratching my head after the game.

Someone asked how contact was made if B1 was moving straight back. A1 was moving much faster and had taken his jump towards the hoop. B1's backpedalling couldn't counteract A1's drive and jump.

I was just looking through the FIBA rules and found that I did in fact kick this call...I kicked it pretty bad too! FIBA rules say:

When judging a block/charge situation involving a player with the ball, an official shall use the following principles:
• The defensive player must establish an initial legal guarding position by facing the player with the ball and having both feet on the floor.
• The defensive player may remain stationary, jump vertically, move laterally or MOVE BACKWARDS in order to maintain the initial legal guarding position.
• When moving to maintain the initial legal guarding position, one or both feet
may be off the floor for an instant, as long as the movement is lateral or
BACKWARDS, but not towards the player with the ball.
• Contact must occur on the torso, in which case the defensive player would be considered as having been at the place of contact first.

Oh well...next time I see this I'll get it right! Hopefully next time B1 will just stay still and "take it like a man" (haha)!

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Did you read the rule?

Are we talking about 4-23-3c?

"Laterally and obliquely?"

Straight back is neither lateral nor oblique.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Straight back is neither lateral nor oblique.

Nor is it moving toward the ball handler, which is illegal if contact occurs.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This is hard to call without seeing it.

The defender is allowed to turn or duck to brace himself for impact, and still maintain LGP. But, back-pedalling? I take that to mean moving straight back, and I can't see how one can maintain LGP going straight back (except to brace, as mentioned).

Laterally, yes. Obliquely, yes. Straight back, how?

How can you lose LGP, after establishing it, by moving straight back as long as you're continually keeping your torso in front of your opponent?

Answer: you can't.

That's a basic, bainsey.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This is hard to call without seeing it.

The defender is allowed to turn or duck to brace himself for impact, and still maintain LGP. But, back-pedalling? I take that to mean moving straight back, and I can't see how one can maintain LGP going straight back (except to brace, as mentioned).

Laterally, yes. Obliquely, yes. Straight back, how?

As long as the defender is moving straight away from the offensive player, as is the case here, it doesn't matter whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

[Pantherdreams]

Interesting thread . . .

Obviously by the rule this cannot be a block. The discussion we often have in our area is whether we call the offensive foul here. Now obviously without seeing the play the timing and intent of both players are are difficult to ascertain and I'm not commenting specifically to what happend here because I didn't see it. The issue we often discuss here being that if the kid is not defending the play, and the offense and defense are niether immediately disdavantage why call anything.

Combine that with the fact that whether they were there legally or illegally someone waiting in the landing spot for an airborne shooter is risky buisness injury wise. The player wants to defend and hold their position fine, if you want to bail out fine but if your not acutally trying to defend and stop the player from scoring (and no one's being excessive) why call anything.

IMO if I've got a kid backpedlaing to avoid contact and an offensive players moving forward to get a shot, I can't see calling a charge because the defense wasn't fast enough to get out of the way. Now if he was just trying to maintain space to challenge as the kid attacks forward that fine reward the d, but in my head i'm seeing a kid trying to back away and just unable to get out of the way fast enough. In that case I'm no calling all the way if possible.

Same issue with kids who stand under neath the backboard allowing players to shoot layups but hoping the airborne shooter will then land on them and they'll get a charge call. Their not trying to defend the play and at that point neither is immediately disadvantaged. Sorry "No call."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

As long as the defender is moving straight away from the offensive player, as is the case here, it doesn't matter whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

Good point, we've been focusing on the wrong rule.

[Adam]

Got my book to reference it, but the rule reference here is 10-6-9.

No player may legally run over an opponent who is, essentially, retreating.

And if you think LGP is lost because the player does something that isn't specifically allowed, then the screening rules would apply. 4-40-6

[bainsey]

Good discussion, crew. I'd like to seek some clarity, though.

Originally Posted by just another ref

As long as the defender is moving straight away from the offensive player, as is the case here, it doesn't matter whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

That's what I think, because according to 4-23-3c, LGP (if any) is lost once a defender moves straight back. If there's another rule that says otherwise, please show me.

Snaqwells, in regards to the rules you referenced:

10-6-9: Are you saying that this rule states that, once a defender obtains LGP, he need not maintain it if a dribbler comes at him? I believe LGP is about "obtain, then maintain," and if it isn't maintained at the point of contact, then it can't be a PC (outstretched limb notwithstanding).

4-40-6: I believe this screening rule applies to opponents moving AND facing the same direction, and neither are necessarily the ball handler. That is, if A1 is moving forward, and B2 is a foot behind him and running in the same direction, when A1 stops, B2 is responsible for the contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good discussion, crew. I'd like to seek some clarity, though.


That's what I think, because according to 4-23-3c, LGP (if any) is lost once a defender moves straight back. If there's another rule that says otherwise, please show me.

Snaqwells, in regards to the rules you referenced:

10-6-9: Are you saying that this rule states that, once a defender obtains LGP, he need not maintain it if a dribbler comes at him? I believe LGP is about "obtain, then maintain," and if it isn't maintained at the point of contact, then it can't be a PC (outstretched limb notwithstanding).

4-40-6: I believe this screening rule applies to opponents moving AND facing the same direction, and neither are necessarily the ball handler. That is, if A1 is moving forward, and B2 is a foot behind him and running in the same direction, when A1 stops, B2 is responsible for the contact.

LGP is not always required for a PC foul.

10-6-9 says nothing about LGP, it says "legal defensive position." IOW, LGP not required.

4-40-6 says nothing about facing the same direction. you can't just make up your own interpretation by adding words that aren't there. It says nothing about neither player being the ball handler, either.

Now, let's go back to LGP briefly.

What's required to establish LGP? Two feet on the floor, facing the opponent.

So, assuming (for the sake of argument) B1 loses LGP every time he lefts a foot and moves it backwards, he gains it again everytime that foot touches the floor. If he's shuffling, he'll have two feet on the floor facing his opponent more often than not.

Finally, do you really think it's the intent of the rules to allow an offensive player to run over a retreating defender just because he's not facing the same direction? IOW, the defender is protected if he's not actually guarding the dribbler?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

LGP is not always required for a PC foul.

True, there's always OSL (outstretched limb), but I don't believe that's applicable here.

10-6-9 says nothing about LGP, it says "legal defensive position." IOW, LGP not required.

Very well. We have a definition for LGP. Do we have a definition for LDP? If not, I'd have to think they're synonymous.

4-40-6 says nothing about facing the same direction. you can't just make up your own interpretation by adding words that aren't there. It says nothing about neither player being the ball handler, either.

Yes, I mentioned that about the ball handler. The only time I've had 4-40-6 in a discussion was regarding both players facing the same direction. As for "adding words," that's actually been my point about 4-23-3c, that "straight back" cannot be added to "laterally" and "obliquely."

So, assuming (for the sake of argument) B1 loses LGP every time he lefts [sic] a foot and moves it backwards, he gains it again everytime that foot touches the floor.

Also true. That does indeed answer my "straight back, how?" question to a degree. We just don't know from the OP whether the backtracking defender had LGP.

Finally, do you really think it's the intent of the rules to allow an offensive player to run over a retreating defender just because he's not facing the same direction?

In most cases, yes. If the defender is retreating, he is not legally guarding the dribbler, so the defender needs to either obtain LGP, or get out of the way.

Now, that doesn't give the dribbler the right to stiff-arm or elbow anyone out of the way. (10-6-7) I use a three-step process for determining block/charge at the point of contact:

1. Is the contact incidental? If yes, no whistle. If no, go to step 2.
2. Did the offensive player make contact using an out-stretched limb (OSL)? If yes, PC. If no, go to step 3.
3. Did the defensive player have LGP? If yes, PC. If no, block.