Block or Charge?

[canuckrefguy]

This appeared on another discussion forum. I copied it, along with two opinions posted afterwards.

What do y'all think?

ORIGINAL POST:
This happened in a high school girls game...
A1 drives to the basket. She picks up the ball to start her lay up attempt. With 1 foot still on the floor, B1 establishes position in front of A1. The collision is square in the numbers. An obvious charge. In discussion with the coach following the game, she argues that her player was in her steps to the basket and said A1 could do nothing to avoid the contact. I agreed but said good defense and tough break for A1.

We all agreed the situation would look differently if boys were playing, because the boys can leave the ground more quickly and stay in the air longer, the same situation would have probably been a block because the defender would have to slide under the shooter to get the position.

RESPONSE #1:
This actually sounds like a block.

If the defender only gets into position after the shooter starts her layup by taking her steps and bringing the ball up, I'm not sure the defender made it there in time.

It all depends on the official's judgement as to when the shooter started her layup. You're right, it would've been much more cut-and-dried in a boy's game.

But this is a tough one to offer an opinion on without having seen it happen.

Bet the coach wouldn't want to make that call without instant replay!

RESPONSE #2:
There is no time or distance associated with block charge. "In the steps" of a drive has nothing to do wheather it's a block or a charge. If a defender moves laterally in the the path of a drive to the hoop it's a charge. If the defender moves laterally into the offensive player then we can assume the offensive player occupied the spot before the defender and a block would be called. Who intiated the contact? The offensive person moving forward or the defensive person moving laterally. You also don't have to hit in the numbers for a charge to be called. Shoulder, side of body or back it doesn't matter. If a coach suggests his player couldn't avoid the contact, they should teach them to drive to the hoop when there's a clear path.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

This is one of those plays one would have to see to call IMO. The skill level definately matters Boys/girls/HS/NC2a. If the defender had established legal guarding position and held that position and A1 initiated the contact I would be inclined to call the charge. That is why we get paid the big bucks to make tough descisions like this in a split second and always get them right. Undoubtably in the process leaving both coaches satified!!!

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I like facets of both answers but don't completely like either answer.

Some plays you have got to see before you can make a call.

Some things listed in the original scenario are not relevant without further information: picks up the ball (in two hands I assume). so what? Airborne? Who was going to get to the collision position first? moving or not moving?Where did B1 come from; was she guarding all along or surprise jump out from behind someone else? One foot on the floor. so what? too much sports TV commentation. 4-23-3 "not required to have either or both feet on the floor." (4-23-2)Cannot establish initial legal guarding position unless both feet are on the floor but that could have been several seconds before the movement causing the collision. Play would be different if boys were playing: yeah, they might have hairier legs, so what?

Response #1 got something right "It all depends upon the official's judgement." (not sure about the rest of the statement)

Response #2 has a good point too "Who initiated the contact?"

I'd have to see it. Got a video?

[zebraman]

I'd have to see it but....by NFHS rule

If you have an airborne shooter, then B1 has to have established position before A1 went airborne.

If A1 isn't an airborne shooter, there is no time and distance required and you have a no call or a charge if A1 initiated the contact.

Z

[Mark Dexter]

Per NF "late positioning" rules, you need an airborne shooter. A1 can't be an airborne shooter - player control foul.

By seeing it . . . that's another story. Position-wise, B1 is legal, but she might do something else to warrant the block (move toward A1, stick out an arm/leg, etc). I agree with everyone else - we really need to get instant replay on this board!!

[PAULK1]

Sounds like there are 2 keys to this play which have been posted above.

1. Airborne shooter or not: from the original it seems not.

2. Intial legal guarding position: really doesn't say in original post.

If B had already establish a legal guarding position
then B could move to maintain the position: PC foul A

If B had not establish a legal guarding position B would
have to have both feet on the ground in front of A to
be there legally:Blocking B

[johnSandlin]

Based on the situation described by the original post, without seen the play for myself, I am inclined to call a charge. If A1 has picked up her dribble while in the process of her steps to the basket, but has NOT left the floor yet, then you have to rule out a block call because the defender has established position and the contact happended square in the numbers.
If A1 has not yet left the floor, then A1 is not a shooter yet, so I would rule out the "block" call, and call this a "charge."

[mick]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy

ORIGINAL POST:
This happened in a high school girls game...
A1 drives to the basket. She picks up the ball to start her lay up attempt. With 1 foot still on the floor, B1 establishes position in front of A1. The collision is square in the numbers. An obvious charge. In discussion with the coach following the game, she argues that her player was in her steps to the basket and said A1 could do nothing to avoid the contact. I agreed but said good defense and tough break for A1.

We all agreed the situation would look differently if boys were playing, because the boys can leave the ground more quickly and stay in the air longer, the same situation would have probably been a block because the defender would have to slide under the shooter to get the position.

RESPONSE #1:
This actually sounds like a block.

If the defender only gets into position after the shooter starts her layup by taking her steps and bringing the ball up, I'm not sure the defender made it there in time.

4-40-3 : "The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball."

I have always considered the last step-1/2, before the release for a try, as part of the habitual motion, whether there's a layup, or a post move. That has been my line.

I have a very easy block call on this play.

mick

[Adam]

4-40-3 : "The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball."

I have always considered the last step-1/2, before the release for a try, as part of the habitual motion, whether there's a layup, or a post move. That has been my line.

I have a very easy block call on this play.


Interesting. My understanding is that 4-40-3 is applied to determine whether a foul is classified as a shooting foul or not; but that it isn't used to determine whether the defense has gained legal guarding position.

I guess for me, thinking about the play and not seeing it in full speed, the call hinges on whether A-1 had left the floor on her final jump before B-1 was in legal guarding position.

Snaqs

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mick
I have always considered the last step-1/2, before the release for a try, as part of the habitual motion, whether there's a layup, or a post move. That has been my line.

I have a very easy block call on this play.

But does the rule say that B1 must have legal guarding position before A1 begins her habitual motion or before she becomes airborne?

__________________________________________________ ______

While most of us will sit here and tell you that this is a PC foul, and I concur, very rarely is it correctly called.

Perhaps mick is the most honest.

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

But does the rule say that B1 must have legal guarding position before A1 begins her habitual motion or before she becomes airborne?

Tony,
No. it sure doesn't. Nor have I been able to find a case of "no time or distance required" that relates to anything other than a dribbler.
Even with my line, I call a lot of PCs (maybe 1-1/2 per game) and I'm comfortable in doing it.
I think the line drawn in the rules between legal guarding postion and illegal blocking with respect to dribblers is easily followed, but since the line, with respect to shooting, is faint, I guess I've drawn my own.
So many times, I've seen "on the floor", "no shot" fouls being made during the habitual foot movements and have wondered, "Why?"
mick

[Int]

This post doesn't require a replay, but it is probably "The quintessential block-charge play".

Reading the post I'm assuming that the official and the coach are agreeing that A1 has started their try motion and B1 took a spot in A1's path facing A1 with both feet on the floor after A1 starts their try but before they are airborne. I'm going to take the "facing and two feet on the floor" assumption because the post said established position and the coach wasn't really arguing against this.

The real discussion point is whether you believe a player must get this position before a player starts their motion on a try or before they are airborne.

mick.... 4-23 (Definition of guarding - legally!) clearly states in article 4 that when guarding an opponent with the ball (does not distinguish between dribbling, shooting or whatever else they want to try with it), no time or distance is required and if the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

I truly believe that this coach, and most others, as well as players, feel that if the offensive player has started their try and committed to jumping into a spot, that the defender needs to be there in enough time for the offensive player to avoid doing it.

I have had a coach say to me "I agree that he was in position before my guy left the floor but he wasn't there before the shot was started". I just reply "Thanks for agreeing with me.".

BktBallRef.... I definitely agree with you that this is rarely called correctly and would suggest that many no-calls are made in this scenario because the official is caught like a deer in headlights thinking that the defender got position before the shooter was airborne but the shooter had already commited to jumping to that spot.

This is the correct PC foul call that when it is made, there's an official watching the game that says "that was a great call but I'm not sure I would have made it."

[mick]

Originally posted by Int

mick.... 4-23 (Definition of guarding - legally!) clearly states in article 4 that when guarding an opponent with the ball (does not distinguish between dribbling, shooting or whatever else they want to try with it), no time or distance is required and if the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

Int,
I recognized that.
However, all the cases, that I see, make implications specifically to the dribbler and not the shooter. Can you help me there? Why would they not include the shooter in one of those cases if that is the intent?
The relationship of legal guarding postion vs. act of shooting seems to have been left up to the official's judgment.
My line is only one line. On the last step-1/2, we have no dribbler with which to base "no time or distance required".
I cannot understand how this play is so clear, but I've been there before.
mick

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Even with my line, I call a lot of PCs (maybe 1-1/2 per game)...
[/B][/QUOTE]

Does this equate to one PC and one blarge per game?

[Int]

mick... there are no cases for 4-23-4. Doesn't mean it's not a rule. Is there a rule that says I have the ball and started a try but I'm not considered an offensive player with the ball ?