Reasonable space between defenders
 

This situation lead to a “T” on the Team A coach, so it got me to thinking….
I see this scenario a lot and have seen all three results, PC foul, Block foul, and NO call.

4-7-2c; 10-6-7, and 10.6.7 all put the "greater responsibility for contact" on the dribbler if two defenders are less than 3 feet apart. Same applies to a defender and the boundary line.

B1 and B2 are in the lane with legal guarding position, @ 3 feet or closer apart.
A1 tries to dribble between B1/B2. As A1 moves between, B1 leans or moves his hip/knee closer to B2. (sticks out his knee may be a better description)

A1 crashes to the floor because of contact.

I tend to have no call, as I view A1 is "responsible" for the contact and the result, but I recognize that B1 did not maintain his legal position. However, I do not see a requirement that B1 and B2 must even have established legal position, only that they are less than 3 feet apart. 4-7-1a & b, require legal guarding to be established, 4-7-1c does not.

What say you?? How do you view/call this situation? Is there a reference interpretation I may be missing?

Doesn't say he's responsible, says he bears the greater responsibility. That directly implies that the defense is still liable. IOW, B1 can still be responsible if he does something stupid like stick his knee out.

This is a blocking foul, IMO.

B2 Sticking his knee with draw a blocking call from me

The only thing the 3-foot reference means is that there is likely to be contact as the dribbler splits the defenders (or defender and the sideline) and to not automatically penalize the defenders unless they actually do something illegal. If they do, they have still fouled.

So B has LGP but then I read that B extends outside of the vertical cylinder. That's a block.

Case book play 10.6.7 unequivocably and definitively says it's a foul on the dribbler. There's no "greater responsibility for contact" language attached to the ruling.

4-23-1
A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Really? Or are you not addressing the play he provides?

Not sure I had ever read this case play before. Whoever wrote this case play thinks three feet is necessary for a dribbler to pass between two defenders without contact?? 32 inches is a common size for interior doorways.
Shaquille O'Neal could pass between 2 defenders 3 feet apart without contact.

LGP or not... stick your knee out= BLOCK.
 

I wouldn't care if the defenders were kissing each other... yes the greater responsibility for contact is on the dribbler, but once B stuck his/her knee out that all goes out the window, Tweet!-Block!

+1 As far as I'm concerned, 3 feet has no special significance in this case. The point of this case play is that the defenders were positioned close enough together that the dribbler could not pass between without contact. The actual measurement involved would vary greatly with the size of the players involved.

Not really. I was addressing the case book play but I should have been addressing the OP. If a defender sticks a knee out, it should be a block.

My bad.

Your play (OP) is not the play where this case play applies. It's where a player tries to squeeze through two other players. When that happens, inevitably, the dribbler will travel as he tries to complete the move. If there's incidental contact there, pass. If there's significant contact caused by A1 trying to go through the defenders (who don't do something unusual like try to stick a leg out), call a PC foul.

Any specific play will have a ruling about who is responsible for contact, offense or defense. That doesn't undercut the rule's general principle concerning the dribbler having "greater responsibility for contact." I think Camron's right to read this as "don't automatically penalize the defenders unless they do something illegal."

In the OP, they did, as I think we're all agreeing.

Me too.....

Block in this case.

bail out
 

Thanks for all the replies. I am a little surprise that everyone would go with the block, I expected some differences.

Change it a little. A1 is trying to split B1/B2 and the space is no doubt in your mind that the initial spacing is too close to for A1 to do it without contact. (that space being less than 3 feet and relevant to the players size and ability)

Even if B1 moves closer in with a knee, aren’t we bailing A1 out for trying to go somewhere he "has the greater responsibility for contact" by calling a block?

Not arguing, just trying to flesh out the situation more. Many around here would view the block as rewarding A1 for initiating contact he shouldn’t have.

I did lump the case play in with the ruling, they are similar, but you are correct the case play does not have the language.

This is about judgement. Sticking a knee out in and of itself isn't illegal, and if it's not the knee that then causes A1 to fall/lose control/whatever happens, it's not a foul.

But, if it's a situation where it was unlikely A1 would make it through, but then B1 stuck a knee out to make sure she didn't and contact with that knee is what causes A1 the issue, it is, by definition, a block.

And if B1 sticks his knee out and you call a charge (or no-call), you're bailing B1 out for being stupid.

If B1 sticks his knee out and contact is on his chest, PC foul (or nothing). If, however, contact is with the extended knee, it's a blocking foul.

Don't worry about not bailing a player out of a jam; B1 bailed him out by sticking his knee out.

Why think of it as bailing someone out? Why would B1's illegal act miraculously become legal merely because B2 is standing 2 feet away?