Block/Player Control/No Call

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Respectfully, I think you're incorrect on that point, Camron. 4-23-3c clearly says that the defender maintains his position (which is a LGP, according to the previous article), by moving laterally.

Additionally, a defender maintains a closely guarded count even when the defender is not directly in the dribbler's path. By your reasoning, as soon as the dribbler moved laterally, the count should stop. (If he's not in the path, then he's not guarding; so how can he be closely guarding?)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Respectfully, I think you're incorrect on that point, Camron. 4-23-3c clearly says that the defender maintains his position (which is a LGP, according to the previous article), by moving laterally.

Additionally, a defender maintains a closely guarded count even when the defender is not directly in the dribbler's path. By your reasoning, as soon as the dribbler moved laterally, the count should stop. (If he's not in the path, then he's not guarding; so how can he be closely guarding?)

Also, when the dribbler moves away from the defender, the defender does not need to move "in his path" to maintain LGP. That would require the defender to move around to cut him off.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

4-23-3c clearly says that the defender maintains his position (which is a LGP, according to the previous article), by moving laterally.

And where might I read sumthin' that says a defender loses his position(LGP) by moving straight backwards while never leaving the direct path of the offensive player?

Rules citation, please.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

4-23-3c clearly says that the defender maintains his position (which is a LGP, according to the previous article), by moving laterally.

The 2009-2010 Points of Emphasis Bulletin further clarifies what a defender can do to maintain his LGP.


4. BLOCK/CHARGE. The obtaining and maintaining of a legal guarding position on a person with and without the ball has been a point of emphasis over the years, but yet, remains one of the most difficult plays to coach and officiate.

A. The basics. To correctly understand the guarding rule, the following points are critical:

1) To obtain an initial guarding position on a player with the ball, the defender must get to the spot first without contact, have both feet touching the floor, and initially face the opponent. (not in dispute here)

2) Once the initial guarding position has been obtained, the defender may move laterally or at an angle or backwards in order to maintain a legal guarding position. Keep in mind that when a defender obtains an initial position with both feet touching the floor and facing his/her opponent, the defender need not be stationary but may continue to move in order to stay in front of the person with the ball. (clearly defines that movement at an angle or backwards movement is permissible to maintain LGP)

3) Once the defender obtains a legal guarding position, the defender may raise his/her hands in a normal stance or may jump vertically within his/her vertical plane. (not in dispute here)

4) A defender may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact. (not in dispute here)

5) A player is never permitted to move into the path of an opponent after the opponent has jumped into the air. (If a players already has LGP, then he is already in the path of the opponent. His backward movement is not moving into the path.)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

As I've said, there's a gap in the rules: they do not specify how one can maintain a "legal position" (or, alternatively, how one loses it) after the shooter goes airborne.

One side of this conversation maintains that any movement by the defender entails loss of LP; the other side maintains that some movement is permitted (namely backward).

Without clarification from NFHS regarding what's missing from the rules, this debate is rationally irresolvable.