The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 26, 2010, 10:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
So you guys are going to allow a player to move into an airborne player's landing spot after that player has gone airborne?
The airborne player was only going to be able to reach that spot by going through the defender. The defender already earned the right to block that particular direction of movement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
\
He's not turning or ducking, as allowed in 4-23-3e. He has intentionally left his defensive spot and moved (backwards, I grant you) into the shooter's landing spot.
But, 4-23-3c allows them to move laterally or obliquely to maintain position. And, as long as they're in the path of the opponent, they're maintaining it. The right to maintain position doesn't disappear just because the opponent is airborne....only the right to obtain a new LGP. If, however, the opponent has jumped in a path to the defender's side (is airborne), they've lost LGP and it is too late to gain a new position with A1 being airborne.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
In an extreme example, suppose A1 is able to jump clear over B1, who has obtained a LGP. B1, seeing that A1 will completely clear him, takes two strides straight backwards so that A1 lands directly on him. You gonna say this is ok? He had LGP and moved only backwards. This is exactly the same as what you point out above. So he still has LGP?
Yes, B1 can ALWAYS move directly away from A1 if they were in the path of A1 before A1 becomes airborne. If A1 has jumped over B1 and then B1 moves back into A1, that is entirely different.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com

Last edited by Camron Rust; Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:36pm.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 27, 2010, 05:38am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
In the play that I outlined above (understanding that it's different from the play in the original post), the answer is no. The defender is still moving to his/her spot (on the floor) while the shooter is airborne 90% of the time. That's my point. Once the shooter (or any player, really) is airborne, the defender better not still be moving to his/her spot or it's a block.
Let's see if we agree on the circumstances.....

- you have a defender who has established a legal position in the path of a player with the ball.
- the player with the ball now moves directly into the defender without altering his straightforward path and initiates slight contact.
- the defender now tries to avoid further contact by moving/falling straight backwards away from the player with the ball.
- the offensive player now continues and jumps straight FORWARD without altering his original straight path and runs into/onto the defender.
- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.
- At also at NO time did the defender do anything to LOSE his legal position under any rule that I know of.

If you really insist that's a foul on the defender, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I can't find anything in the rules that will justify that premise. At NO time, did the defender do anything illegal that I can think of. The defender with a legal position was moving straight back trying to avoid contact and the player with the ball continued straight forward to initiate contact. That isn't a block.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 27, 2010, 05:44am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
The airborne player was only going to be able to reach that spot by going through the defender. The defender already earned the right to block that particular direction of movement.
But, 4-23-3c allows them to move laterally or obliquely to maintain position. And, as long as they're in the path of the opponent, they're maintaining it. The right to maintain position doesn't disappear just because the opponent is airborne....only the right to obtain a new LGP. If, however, the opponent has jumped in a path to the defender's side (is airborne), they've lost LGP and it is too late to gain a new position with A1 being airborne.

1) And fwiw, that's basically what I've been trying to say also. The defender didn't commit an illegal act under any rule that I'm aware of.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 27, 2010, 10:35am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 21,966
"All we want are the facts, ma'am" (Joe Friday)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
Let's see if we agree on the circumstances.....
- you have a defender who has established a legal position in the path of a player with the ball.
- the player with the ball now moves directly into the defender without altering his straightforward path and initiates slight contact.
- the defender now tries to avoid further contact by moving/falling straight backwards away from the player with the ball.
- the offensive player now continues and jumps straight FORWARD without altering his original straight path and runs into/onto the defender.
- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.
- At also at NO time did the defender do anything to LOSE his legal position under any rule that I know of.
If every Forum member posted in this manner, we'd have fewer arguments and name calling. Jurassic Referee has posted the facts in a clear, concise manner. Now all we need to do is to apply an interpretation to the rule in his posted situation. By not paying close attention to the language in their posts, some Forum members tend to "muck" things up. Not always their fault, because it's very difficult to describe some plays in typed words in an internet post. A lesson in how to post for all members, but especially for newer members.

By the way, in Jurassic Referee's play, as described above, I do not have a blocking foul.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 27, 2010, 09:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
Let's see if we agree on the circumstances.....

- you have a defender who has established a legal position in the path of a player with the ball.
- the player with the ball now moves directly into the defender without altering his straightforward path and initiates slight contact.
- the defender now tries to avoid further contact by moving/falling straight backwards away from the player with the ball.
- the offensive player now continues and jumps straight FORWARD without altering his original straight path and runs into/onto the defender.
- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.
- At also at NO time did the defender do anything to LOSE his legal position under any rule that I know of.

If you really insist that's a foul on the defender, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I can't find anything in the rules that will justify that premise. At NO time, did the defender do anything illegal that I can think of. The defender with a legal position was moving straight back trying to avoid contact and the player with the ball continued straight forward to initiate contact. That isn't a block.
JR,
You hit the nail on the head. I tried to use those points you mentioned to the evaluator but he closed his ears to all words that came out of my mouth. Plus I got labled as: Difficult, Argumentive and ... well you get the idea.
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 27, 2010, 11:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
Let's see if we agree on the circumstances.....

- you have a defender who has established a legal position in the path of a player with the ball.
- the player with the ball now moves directly into the defender without altering his straightforward path and initiates slight contact.
- the defender now tries to avoid further contact by moving/falling straight backwards away from the player with the ball.
- the offensive player now continues and jumps straight FORWARD without altering his original straight path and runs into/onto the defender.
- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.
- At also at NO time did the defender do anything to LOSE his legal position under any rule that I know of.

If you really insist that's a foul on the defender, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I can't find anything in the rules that will justify that premise. At NO time, did the defender do anything illegal that I can think of. The defender with a legal position was moving straight back trying to avoid contact and the player with the ball continued straight forward to initiate contact. That isn't a block.
Under the circumstances which you present, I actually believe that a player control foul is warranted. I'd probably go 75% PC - 25% No whistle depending upon how much contact there was.
What I'm not going to do is penalize the defender.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 06:28am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Under the circumstances which you present, I actually believe that a player control foul is warranted. I'd probably go 75% PC - 25% No whistle depending upon how much contact there was.
What I'm not going to do is penalize the defender.
That's always gonna be a judgment call versus incidental contact imo. If the contact took the defender out of the play and allowed the offensive player to continue going to the hole, I can see calling a PC under those circumstances also. You don't want to let 'em gain a definite advantage like that out of the contact.

Another good example of a play like that is the quick push-off by the forearm of a dribbler, a push-off that makes the defender stumble back a little and allows the dribbler to get the separation that allows him to go up and shoot. Iow a Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant special.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 06:33am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
JR,
You hit the nail on the head. I tried to use those points you mentioned to the evaluator but he closed his ears to all words that came out of my mouth. Plus I got labled as: Difficult, Argumentive and ... well you get the idea.
Evaluators should always keep an open mind too. It's another area of officiating where we should never stop learning also imo.

Small consolation but at least you know in your own mind that you were right.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 07:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
He then proceeded to write additional comments on my evaluation form. He would not tell me what the comment was, ...
I know I'm late to this party - but I have a problem with this. Why can't an official see his own evaluation? This does not help an official to improve himself.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 10:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by sseltser View Post
I know I'm late to this party - but I have a problem with this. Why can't an official see his own evaluation? This does not help an official to improve himself.
Maybe it was a try-out camp?
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 03:14pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,441
It seems like I'm a minority of one here. It's possible that I'm thinking too much with my NCAA hat on, and if so, I will bow to the greater collected wisdom of the majority. But before I do that, let me give it one more try and see if anybody wants to agree with me. Here's where I'm hanging my hat:

Quote:
NFHS 4-23-4b: If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.
Very simply, I take this to mean that the guard must have gotten to the spot of contact (his legal position) before the ballhandler left the floor. It's not talking about initial guarding position; that discussed in 4-23-4a. It's not talking about maintaining LGP, because that's covered in 4-23-3.

It says he has to already be at his position before the ballhandler is airborne.

If we accept the majority view here, a ballhandler could make a terrific, athletic play -- jumping laterally to avoid a defender with LGP; and that defender could then run/slide laterally into the ballhandler's landing spot. You guys would say that's a PC foul.

I can't honestly believe that the rule is supposed to allow any player to move under any other after one of them becomes airborne.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 03:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
If we accept the majority view here, a ballhandler could make a terrific, athletic play -- jumping laterally to avoid a defender with LGP; and that defender could then run/slide laterally into the ballhandler's landing spot. You guys would say that's a PC foul.
Actually, in the post from Jurassic, he specifically mentions the case where the defender was always directly in the path of the offender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.
I think your situation introduces another variable with the offensive player jumping laterally.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 03:39pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
1) It's possible that I'm thinking too much with my NCAA hat on, and if so, I will bow to the greater collected wisdom of the majority.

2)Very simply, I take this to mean that the guard must have gotten to the spot of contact (his legal position) before the ballhandler left the floor. It's not talking about initial guarding position; that discussed in 4-23-4a. It's not talking about maintaining LGP, because that's covered in 4-23-3
It says he has to already be at his position before the ballhandler is airborne.

2) I can't honestly believe that the rule is supposed to allow any player to move under any other after one of them becomes airborne.
1) And your NCAA hat also probably tells you that there's an AR that says it's a block if a player with the ball stumbles over a defender who fell in front of him. Different rules iow...NFHS versus NCAA. My own opinion is that this is one play where either one or the other should move so that there's unified interp. That makes it easier for the officials like you that go back and forth between the two rulesets.

2) And the problem remains that the defender did nothing to lose that legal position on the court by simply falling straight backwards under any rule that I am aware of.

3) Is the defender moving under the airborne shooter or is the airborne shooting jumping into/onto a defender who is falling backwards? We all know that the defender can't move laterally or forward under an airborne shooter, but there's nothing stating that he can't fall backward. The act of "turning" to absorb the contact is legal, and that act will usually move the defender backwards slightly too n'est-ce-pas?
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 05:14pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 21,966
Apologies To Gomez Addams ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
N'est-ce-pas?
"Jurassic Referee! I just love it when you speak French!"
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 28, 2010, 05:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by sseltser View Post
I know I'm late to this party - but I have a problem with this. Why can't an official see his own evaluation? This does not help an official to improve himself.
I saw his original comments
-Good Positioning
-Referee the Defense
His additional comment was writen after my discussion with him about his statement that "the defender loses LGP when he leans back"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
Player Control and Team Control fouls MelbRef Basketball 15 Mon Dec 15, 2008 01:43pm
Player Control or Block regs1234 Basketball 10 Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:01pm
Block/Charge/Player Control? RookieDude Basketball 16 Sun Dec 29, 2002 06:02pm
Player Control or Block? Sleeper Basketball 16 Sun Nov 24, 2002 02:30pm
Player control or no call? Kelly Spann Basketball 4 Wed Dec 22, 1999 09:15am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1