Reasonable space between defenders

[wyo96]

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?

[Adam]

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.

[RobbyinTN]

B2 Sticking his knee with draw a blocking call from me

[Camron Rust]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by wyo96

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?

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by wyo96

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. What say you??

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by wyo96

As A1 moves between, B1 leans or moves his hip/knee closer to B2. (sticks out his knee may be a better description)

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wyo96

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[just another ref]

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.

[NoFussRef]

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!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[Rich]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by RobbyinTN

B2 Sticking his knee with draw a blocking call from me

Me too.....