Don't Hit Me!!!
 

I reffed a game last night and saw a play I don't think I've ever seen before on any level. A1 starts to drive the lane. B1 has perfect position to take the charge (he was standing about 4 ft away from the hoop). As A1 approaches, B1 starts backpedaling. A1 finished his shot (missed it) and ended up in B1's lap on the floor. I called it a block because B1 obviously didn't have his feet set. That being said, he did have legal guarding position before the contact because he was at the spot first (and the contact happened torso-to-torso).

I don't know what made the guy backpedal like that. I've seen guys turn away just to shield themselves from the hit they're about to take...but to start backpedaling was a new one for me. Did I make the right call?

LGP established and then back-pedaling would not be a block.

How did the crash occur if B1 was backing up? Did he stop at some point?

ABC, his feet do not need to be set; that's the whole point of LGP. Once established, he can back pedal all he wants. Sounds like a PC foul.

We had a very recent discussion on this in a Lebron James thread.

Feet being set are not a factor. Seems like you kicked this one based on the rule and the description.

Peace

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?

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

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.

Did you read the rule?

Lgp
 

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)!

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.

Are we talking about 4-23-3c?

"Laterally and obliquely?"

Straight back is neither lateral nor oblique.

Block ? Charge ?
 

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

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.

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."

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