Shelding an opponet

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by constable

anyone else wondering what "shelding" is?

Nope, we pretty much know what he means.

Some of us, me included, are not good spellers.....and Mr. Spelling and Vocabulary man hasn't been around for a while.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by hoopsaddict

I saw this play happen in a pick up game but it makes me wonder how to call it in a game when I'm wearing the stripes.

The ball is rolling toward the out of bounds area player A1 is running the ball down to safe it has player B1 steps in front of player A1 who is a few feet from the ball. Preventing the player from making a playable attempt on saving the ball from going out of bounce. Is this a blocking foul when player B1 tries to impede player A1 who is attempting to safe the ball?

Don't be a plumber.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Again, I am envisioning the OPS scenario like a soccer player (Team A) shielding an opponent (Team B) from the opportunity to play the ball so it rolls out of bounds and Team A gets it. In this scenario, Player A having his back to Player B or not, unless B gets bludgeoned (sp) in some way, blocking a players way, with minor/possible incidental contact = no foul.

My understanding of the situation anyhow.

Finally.... someone knew what the OP was talking about!

I see this play from time to time and have never called a foul, but I have often wondered what would have to happen for me to call a foul. I supposed if A moved to contact B and didn't give B T&D, and B had a clearly obvious chance to obtain possession, I might call it - only because it's a HTBT type of play.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Finally.... someone knew what the OP was talking about!

I see this play from time to time and have never called a foul, but I have often wondered what would have to happen for me to call a foul. I supposed if A moved to contact B and didn't give B T&D, and B had a clearly obvious chance to obtain possession, I might call it - only because it's a HTBT type of play.

I think it would need to be something fairly obvious for a foul to be called. Most times, there isn't an advantage gained, since the ball is going out of bounds anyhow. But other than some significant displacement, illegal body positioning, and a decent chance at gaining possession, I would tend to let it go.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I think it would need to be something fairly obvious for a foul to be called. Most times, there isn't an advantage gained, since the ball is going out of bounds anyhow. But other than some significant displacement, illegal body positioning, and a decent chance at gaining possession, I would tend to let it go.

Anytime B is going for the ball, and A contacts B, there most certainly is an advantage gained. If B isn't given a legitimate chance at the loose ball and it's pending award goes to A, and A contacts B illegally, that is the definition of advantage.

But I do agree that something fairly obvious needs to be present for me to sound my whistle.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I think it would need to be something fairly obvious for a foul to be called. Most times, there isn't an advantage gained, since the ball is going out of bounds anyhow. But other than some significant displacement, illegal body positioning, and a decent chance at gaining possession, I would tend to let it go.

+1 other than the no advantage gained part as Juggler said. Someone is going to get an advantage by doing this.

I am also looking for significant body contact and who is initiating it, loose ball one has to expect some degree of contact on the floor. The rules even state(if I remember correctly), 10 bodies moving is a relatively confined space there will eb contact.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

The rules even state(if I remember correctly), 10 bodies moving is a relatively confined space there will eb contact.

RULE 4-25, SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT

Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted
and which does not constitute a foul.

ART. 1 . . . The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When
10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.

ART. 2 . . . Contact, which may result when opponents are in equally favorable
positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements,
should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from
participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered
incidental.

ART. 4 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to
avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In
cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent
contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact,
provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

ART. 5 . . . If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from
a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball
without making contact with the

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Don't be a plumber.

Glad I scanned the answers first. I was going to quote you. Wait, I think I just did.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Nope, we pretty much know what he means.

Some of us, me included, are not good spellers.....and Mr. Spelling and Vocabulary Man hasn't been around for a while.

He is busy shooting squirrels with a borrowed bb gun.