What if a defender never established LGP and attempts to guard a dribbler
 

When you have established initial legal guarding position, you have the right to continue to move in the path of the dribbler. But what if B1 has never established an initial legal guarding position and attempts to guard A1 with his back facing A1? What's the call in this situation, whether contact occurs or doesn't occurs?

If there is no contact, there is no call....legal play.

If there is contact, it will usually be a block.

However, if the defender had been either stationary (no LGP required) or was moving directly away from the dribbler (in the same path and direction), the defender has a right to that position if it was legally obtained. Moving directly away only decreases any chance of contact or the severity of the contact.

LGP is only needed to move laterally or obliquely away from the drubber, not directly away.

Thanks. Great response.

Here is an example of a defender guarding the dribbler without having a LGP (actually the defender is setting a moving screen against the dribbler):

A1 is dribbling the ball down the court parallel to the Sideline, with the SL to his right, and B1 is running next to him, on his left just short of contact, stride for stride. Now for the good part: A1 decides to change directions and moves to his left and makes contact with B1 and displaces B1. What do you have?

MTD, Sr.

My favorite play as a point guard

A headache.

I hate this play. The worst part is, you can always see it coming. And, it is often right in front of the coaches.

If the defender clearly hasn't initiated the contact and isn't trying to impede the RSBQ, then its a no call for me.


As an aside, this happened twice, on successive possessions in a double OT jv game last year, the coach went nuts both times. After the game, the varsity guys who had came out to watch the overtimes said I had a great couple of no calls on those plays. Very confusing, though.

So you are saying it is okay for the A1 to push B1 off a spot on the court that he has a legal right to be occupying?

MTD, Sr.

No, the varsity guys said so... :D

I have a block (or nothing).

B1 was not legally in the spot that is now in A1's path. B1 is moving but was never facing A1....thus never had LGP and right to be moving at the time of contact even if it was lateral relative to A1's path.

If, however, A1 made the contact solely for the sake of making contact, I'll probably call nothing....tough luck A1.

Agreed. The only way I'd have a charge is if A1 contacted B1 with an outstretched limb.

Some of the smarter players use their bodies (dip the shoulder or throw the hip) to displace the defender too.

Really? What if A1 lowers his/her shoulder and absolutely blasts into B1? No PC foul then?

The upper limb includes the shoulder. I did say "outstretched," though. Good catch. Yes, PC.

Camron:

In my play, A1 and B1 are moving in the same direction along parallel paths, meaning that B1 is setting a legal moving screen against A1 within A1's vision. If A1 moves into B1 and displaces B1 from his path, then A1 has committed a pushing foul.

MTD, Sr.

Maybe, Maybe not (most likely in your specific scenario).

I don't call a PC just because A1's shoulder is down and it contacts B1. B1 still has to be in the path legally...and B1 wasn't in this case.

That said, if A1 just blasts B1 for the sake of blasting B1 as your scenario suggests, PC.

There is nothing I've seen in the rules requiring A1 to keep any specific body orientation as they move around the court. The rules requiring the arms, hips, legs, etc. to remain in the frame of the torso all have to do with guarding and screening....and A1 isn't doing either (usually).

Not true. The legal moving screen must be in the same path and direction and the player behind must stop if the player in front stops or slows. Your example is in the same direction but not the same path and B1 is not in front of A1. Not applicable at all.

Plus, B1 isn't setting a screen, B1 is guarding.

Additionally, defenders never have the right to a path relative to the ball handler. They have a right to a path only when being screened and the screen is late or moving. The only path that matters in situations involving a dribbler is the dribbler's path (unless the dribbler is setting a screen).

If the dribbler cuts off a defender's established path, isn't he by definition setting a moving screen?

If a defender runs into a dribbler, isn't he, by definition, committing a block/push/charge?

Basically, you have two players that are moving such that their paths intersect. At least one of the two has the right to be moving at that time (sometimes both, but not in this case).

To determine which, you have to decide if A1 is screening or B1 is guarding.

Who is trying to get to where? Where is the defender trying go? Who is he trying to guard? Usually, the defender is attempting to guard the player with the ball. If it were a screen, who is the screen set for, who is it freeing up?

If A1 is trying to cut to the basket or otherwise make a play with B1 is trying to stop A1, this simply can not be a screen, it is a guarding situation. B1 must have LGP at the time of contact in order to be moving legally.

If B1 is trying to get to another player in order to guard them (perhaps a pick-and-roll type of play where B1 is trying to cover the roller), A1 must set a legal screen....with time and distance.

In the situation as presented, there is no indication that B1 was doing anything other than trying to stay with and guard A1. Thus, B1 is guarding (poorly) and A1 is not screening....guarding rules apply. During a guarding situation, the only path that matters is that of the offense...the defense must get in the spot before the offense. If they're running side by side, I don't see that the defender beat the player to any spot, the defender was late. Even if the dribbler did a perfect 90 turn toward the defender, the defender was moving and was never facing the dribbler...still a block.