Block/Player Control/No Call

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Here is what the rule says (4-23):

If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

Note that it doesn't say anything about a spot or at the point of contact....just about when LGP must be obtained.

FINALLY!!! LOL. This is the obvious and the only rule-based objection to my position that really has any bite. I'm not sure it's fatal, but I've been waiting for 2 days for somebody to throw it in my face. I skirted my way around it in post #56, and nobody called me on it.

So now that Camron has called me on it, I'm going to try to say why I don't think it's actually a problem for me.

(I'm actually going to use Camron's own objection against him.)

4-23-4b does not talk about the point of contact. It only talks about obtaining a legal position. Camron's absolutely right about that. But he's wrong when he states that the rule addresses "when LGP must be obtained". It only addresses obtaining a "legal position".

The rule doesn't actually refer to LGP. "Legal guarding position" is a very specific term and is used explicitly for a specific purpose in Articles 2 and 3 of 4-23. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that if the rulemakers had intended LGP -- in that specific sense -- to be a consideration, they would have simply included the phrase in the rule, just as they did in Articles 2 and 3. Especially since they just discussed obtaining a legal guarding position in 4-23-4a. But they didn't do that.

I don't think it's talking about "obtaining an initial legal guarding position", because that's covered in 4-23-2. If that's what they were talking about, they could have included it as 4-23-2c. And they're obviously not talking about maintaining a legal guarding position (since the rule explicitly uses the word "obtained".)

So since the rule isn't talking about LGP, what does it mean to obtain a legal position? It just means to get to your spot on the floor without being out of bounds. And you have to get there before the opponent became airborne.

Am I stretching? Yeah, probably. But to me, this makes more sense than saying that it's not legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing spot but that it is legal to move backwards into an opponent's landing spot. That makes absolutely no sense at all, based on the rules. In fact, based on Camron's excellent post, even Jurassic would be compelled to say that it IS, in fact, legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing space. And as I said earlier, that is an unacceptable result.

[mbyron]

I'm going to say that the rules have a lacuna: they don't say how a defender may maintain legal position while the shooter is airborne. Scrapper says this can be done only by staying put; JR et al. say that this can be done also by retreating.

Let's request a new rule.

[just another ref]

Bottom line: If the defender is on the floor in the path of the offensive player when the player becomes airborne, and the defender's only movement is directly away from the offensive player, it is impossible for this defender to commit a blocking foul, whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line: If the defender is on the floor in the path of the offensive player when the player becomes airborne, and the defender's only movement is directly away from the offensive player, it is impossible for this defender to commit a blocking foul, whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

This is true (in NFHS rules), although I'm not sure why it's the bottom line. . .

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is true (in NFHS rules), although I'm not sure why it's the bottom line. . .

Because Stone Cold JAR said so!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line: If the defender is on the floor in the path of the offensive player when the player becomes airborne, and the defender's only movement is directly away from the offensive player, it is impossible for this defender to commit a blocking foul, whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is true (in NFHS rules), although I'm not sure why it's the bottom line. . .

Isn't that what happened in the play below?

A1 dribbles toward the basket. A1 and B1 make slight or no contact. B1 falls backwards of his/her own volition. A1 becomes airborne to attempt a try. On returning to the floor, A1 trips over B1 who is now lying on the floor.

90% of the time, B1 has taken a defensive position (if you can call it that) under A1 after A1 has become airborne. This is not a legal position. If contact ensues that prevents A1 from landing normally, this is going to be a block.

Are you saying that B1 falling kills the deal? If he had stood still and A1 had done the same thing, it would have been PC? If he had stepped backward prior to the crash, it would have been PC?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line: If the defender is on the floor in the path of the offensive player when the player becomes airborne, and the defender's only movement is directly away from the offensive player, it is impossible for this defender to commit a blocking foul, whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

I'll put it this way. If the defender is on the floor in the path of the offensive player when the player becomes airborne, and the defender's only movement is directly away from the offensive player and you call a block your supervisor will not be happy.

[Back In The Saddle]

I am unable to locate "landing spot" in my rule book. Yet it figures prominently in the 90% block argument. Certainly we use the phrase "landing spot" often to explain certain fouls to players/coaches. But unless I'm missing something (and it wouldn't be the first time), "landing spot" is not a rules-based consideration.

What is a consideration is "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor". Clearly the player in Scrappy's scenario obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. He also obtained LGP, which grants additional rights beyond mere "legal position". One of those rights is the right to move, within prescribed limits, to maintain position. Movement backward, away from the opponent, and in the same path is clearly within those limits.

So if the guard obtained legal position before the shooter left the floor, and he did not move toward the opponent when contact occurs (thus going outside the prescribed limits on movement to maintain)...how is this a block? Did he do something to lose legal position? If so, what? It can't be about "landing spot".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

FINALLY!!! LOL. This is the obvious and the only rule-based objection to my position that really has any bite. I'm not sure it's fatal, but I've been waiting for 2 days for somebody to throw it in my face. I skirted my way around it in post #56, and nobody called me on it.

I alluded to it in post 46...http://forum.officiating.com/basketball/58474-block-player-control-no-call-4.html

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So now that Camron has called me on it, I'm going to try to say why I don't think it's actually a problem for me.

(I'm actually going to use Camron's own objection against him.)

4-23-4b does not talk about the point of contact. It only talks about obtaining a legal position. Camron's absolutely right about that. But he's wrong when he states that the rule addresses "when LGP must be obtained". It only addresses obtaining a "legal position".

In this case, the guarding is implied. Articles 4 & 5 are futher qualifying when how legal position can be obtain relative to the movement of the opponent. It doesn't not alter the obtaining/maintaining of LGP. The two are intertwined. If the player has LGP, then they also have a legal position. If they have legal position, they might have LGP depeding on other factors.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The rule doesn't actually refer to LGP. "Legal guarding position" is a very specific term and is used explicitly for a specific purpose in Articles 2 and 3 of 4-23. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that if the rulemakers had intended LGP -- in that specific sense -- to be a consideration, they would have simply included the phrase in the rule, just as they did in Articles 2 and 3. Especially since they just discussed obtaining a legal guarding position in 4-23-4a. But they didn't do that.

All fine, but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think it's talking about "obtaining an initial legal guarding position", because that's covered in 4-23-2. If that's what they were talking about, they could have included it as 4-23-2c. And they're obviously not talking about maintaining a legal guarding position (since the rule explicitly uses the word "obtained".)

In this case, both legal position and LGP were obtained prior to the shooter going airborne. There are no restrictions on maintaining legal position but there are on LGP. If B1 had legal position at the moment A1 left the floor, that is all that is required by 4-23-4b & 4-23-5d.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So since the rule isn't talking about LGP, what does it mean to obtain a legal position? It just means to get to your spot on the floor without being out of bounds. And you have to get there before the opponent became airborne.

But nowhere does it define that legal position is a fixed spot on the floor.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Am I stretching? Yeah, probably. But to me, this makes more sense than saying that it's not legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing spot but that it is legal to move backwards into an opponent's landing spot. That makes absolutely no sense at all, based on the rules.

Throw out the rules for just a moment and thing about whether it even makes sense. It doesn't. It goes against all logic.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In fact, based on Camron's excellent post, even Jurassic would be compelled to say that it IS, in fact, legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing space. And as I said earlier, that is an unacceptable result.

It does NO such thing. If the player has to move laterally to get into the path of an airborne player, they've already lost any LGP they had and they are trying to OBTAIN a legal position and LGP....which can't be done after the shooter goes airborne.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Here is what the rule says (4-23):

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Is there any time in this situation that the player is not in the path?

It also says (about OBTAINING position)....

If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

Note that it doesn't say anything about a spot or at the point of contact....just about when LGP must be obtained. This is in the section about OBTAINING position. Do you agree that the player in this situation has LGP before stepping back? Did the player obtain initial LGP? Yes.

Correct. The key factors are being in the path of the opponent and having obtained legal position before the opponent goes airborne.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But he's wrong when he states that the rule addresses "when LGP must be obtained". It only addresses obtaining a "legal position".

So since the rule isn't talking about LGP, what does it mean to obtain a legal position? It just means to get to your spot on the floor without being out of bounds. And you have to get there before the opponent became airborne.

You are making an error in writing "a" before "legal position," as that implies a particular location. Please note that the rule does not have this article and only requires the defender to have obtained "legal position," which entails placing his body in the path of the opponent. The defender doesn't have to get there, as you write, rather he can be anywhere along the path. That's fundamental to correctly understanding this play.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Am I stretching? Yeah, probably. But to me, this makes more sense than saying that it's not legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing spot but that it is legal to move backwards into an opponent's landing spot.

A player who must move laterally to reach the location where an airborne opponent will land and cause a crash would not have been in his path and thus didn't have legal position. However, a player who moves directly backwards did have his body in the path of the opponent prior to him leaving the floor. That is how I can rationalize a difference in ruling on these two actions.

There is no way that the intent and purpose of the rule is to penalize a defender for stepping backwards after an onrushing opponent jumps towards him. For the rules to state that it would be a foul on the defender in this case would not maintain the carefully crafted balance between the offense and the defense which the NFHS states the rules are intended to create.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the player has to move laterally to get into the path of an airborne player, they've already lost any LGP they had and they are trying to OBTAIN a legal position and LGP....which can't be done after the shooter goes airborne.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A player who must move laterally to reach the location where an airborne opponent will land and cause a crash would not have been in his path and thus didn't have legal position.

So. . .

B1 establishes a LGP on A1, who is dribbling. A1 moves laterally in an attempt to dribble around B1. B1 is able to move laterally back into A1's path and contact occurs on B1's torso. Can we agree that this is a player control foul? I think so.

Now. . .

B1 establishes a LGP on A1, who is dribbling. A1 jumps laterally in an attempt to release a try. B1 is able to move laterally back into A1's path and contact occurs on B1's torso (before A1 returns to the floor). You guys are saying that this is a blocking foul (which, of course, it is).

How do you justify the difference? B1 was originally in the path of A1 in both plays. A1 took a different path in both those plays. B1 was able to get back into the path before the contact in both those plays. B1 was not moving toward A1 at the time of contact in either play. Yet one is a PC and one is a block. Why?

It seems you're both saying that B1 maintains LGP on a dribbler who changes paths but LOSES his LGP on a player who changes paths by jumping, as I've highlighted in red above. Is there any rule basis at all for such a distinction?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So. . .

B1 establishes a LGP on A1, who is dribbling. A1 moves laterally in an attempt to dribble around B1. B1 is able to move laterally back into A1's path and contact occurs on B1's torso. Can we agree that this is a player control foul? I think so.

Yes. PC

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Now. . .

B1 establishes a LGP on A1, who is dribbling. A1 jumps laterally in an attempt to release a try. B1 is able to move laterally back into A1's path and contact occurs on B1's torso (before A1 returns to the floor). You guys are saying that this is a blocking foul (which, of course, it is).

Yes, as long as the lateral movement by the defender came AFTER A1 jumped.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

How do you justify the difference? B1 was originally in the path of A1 in both plays. A1 took a different path in both those plays. B1 was able to get back into the path before the contact in both those plays. B1 was not moving toward A1 at the time of contact in either play. Yet one is a PC and one is a block. Why?

It seems you're both saying that B1 maintains LGP on a dribbler who changes paths but LOSES his LGP on a player who changes paths by jumping, as I've highlighted in red above. Is there any rule basis at all for such a distinction?

100% agree. The dribbler is not airborne and this allows BY RULE the defender to move laterally or obliquely to maintain legal position as the offensive player changes his path.
However, the rules are different after a player becomes airborne. (These rules have already been quoted and you know them anyway.) If the defender was in the airborne player's path before he left the floor, then he is fine, and doesn't have to relinquish that position (other than not moving forward), but if the airborne player picked a new path and jumped in that direction which is NOT the one along which the defender currently is, then the defender has to let him go. The defender cannot slide over to get in this new path AFTER the opponent has become airborne. Any illegal contact caused by doing so would be the fault of the defender.

It's really that simple.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So. . .

How do you justify the difference? B1 was originally in the path of A1 in both plays. A1 took a different path in both those plays. B1 was able to get back into the path before the contact in both those plays. B1 was not moving toward A1 at the time of contact in either play. Yet one is a PC and one is a block. Why?

It seems you're both saying that B1 maintains LGP on a dribbler who changes paths but LOSES his LGP on a player who changes paths by jumping, as I've highlighted in red above. Is there any rule basis at all for such a distinction?

If B1 is not in A1's path, B1 has lost LGP whether it is against a dribber or an airborne player. In the dribbling case, B1 re-obtains a new LGP when they get back in A1's path. By doing so, it is a PC. In the airborne case, B1 can not legally re-obtain LGP since A1 is airborne....thus it can only be a block.

It is possible that B1 could either continuously maintain LGP or lose it and re-obtain LGP against a dribbler.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the defender was in the airborne player's path before he left the floor, then he is fine, and doesn't have to relinquish that position (other than not moving forward), but if the airborne player picked a new path and jumped in that direction which is NOT the one along which the defender currently is, then the defender has to let him go.

Ok, I think that I do know the rules, but honestly don't know how you justify this particular claim. Where is the rule that says LGP is lost immediately when an offensive player jumps laterally? That's an honest question, and not intended to sound snooty.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If B1 is not in A1's path, B1 has lost LGP whether it is against a dribber or an airborne player.

This is simply false. When a dribbler changes path, a defender who has obtained an initial LGP can "maintain" that LGP by moving laterally. (4-23-3c) They don't lose it and re-establish it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Ok, I think that I do know the rules, but honestly don't know how you justify this particular claim. Where is the rule that says LGP is lost immediately when an offensive player jumps laterally? That's an honest question, and not intended to sound snooty.


This is simply false. When a dribbler changes path, a defender who has obtained an initial LGP can "maintain" that LGP by moving laterally. (4-23-3c) They don't lose it and re-establish it.

The defender may indeed move to maintain LGP but that requires they stay in the opponents path while doing so. If the dribbler completely goes a new direction such that the defender is, even for a moment, not in the dribbler's path (the direction the dribbler is moving), the defender has lost LGP. That is the basic definition of guarding....you must be IN the path. If the defender doesn't meet the requirements of basic guarding, they certainly don't have LGP. Many times, the defender is able to keep up with the dribblers movements and is able to remain in the path continuously, but that is not always the case.