I understand how Initial Guarding Position is established and maintained. However, I am confused on when it HAS to be established to draw a PC foul.

Say A1 is dribbling toward the basket from the top of the key. B2 is chasing his man A2 from left to right at the free throw line. A2 runs through followed by B2. A1 dribbles into the side of B2. Even though there was no Initial Guarding Position, does not B2 have a right to that sopot on the floor if he got there first. This many times would be a no-call, but by rule isn't it a PC foul.

I am under the impression that initial guarding position is dealing with a defender jumping into the path of a dribbler. the rules seem to contradict themselves. A player is entitled to ANY spot on the floor as long as he gets there first, RIGHT???

SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN!!!

I hope that is not a regular occurence in your games.
Nail B2 for st :rolleyes: pid, but call the PC.

The main thing in my mind is who initiated the contact. I have seen players leap into the defenders chest and complain, "But he was moving..." I once heard an 8th grade boys coach encourage his player to "run over him." If the offensive player creates the contact, regardless of the defender's position, it is usually a PC foul.

Don't forget screening principles apply even to the player with the ball. Sounds like A1 might be guilty of an illegal screen, in any event like Mick says call the PC.

I guess what I'm confused about..........
 

is the whole "intial guarding position" thing. Can I as a defender jump into the path of a dribbler, without getting initial guarding position. If I claim a spot first and don't move, am I entitled to it. And if there is contact, is it a PC foul?

I see defenders jumping in fromt of dribblers, but not exactly facing them sometimes. These are almost always called blocking fouls and I'm not sure they are. If I fet to a spot on the floor and don't move, jump, duck, etc. I am entitled to it and any contact with me is the fault of my opponent. This is my take anyway, I just wanted other opinions.

Re: I guess what I'm confused about..........
 

Illini_Ref,
No! In this second sitch, the defender is attempting to tamper and hamper the ball handler and is an illegal position to do so.
In your original sitch the defender was not trying to defend and was not doing anything illegally when the dribbler smacked him.
mick

Re: I guess what I'm confused about..........
 

Moving or not is besides the point (in other words you can move, just not into the dribbler). In any event, if you, as a defender, jump into the path of the dribbler as you say above then you have in fact established legal guarding position (both feet on the floor facing your opponent). No time/distance is required against the dribbler. If you have already established LGP then jump into the path of the dribbler but not into the dribbler himself the dribbler has responsibility for torso-to-torso contact, whether your feet are on the flor or not. You as defender, are allowed to move to absorb contact.

For enough people block/charge is a tough call. It really doesn't have to be.

Answer your questions? Let's get back to talking about the war... :eek:

I think I'm seeing hte light now.
 

That makes sense. Rule 10-6 of the NFHS rules says, in part, "If a dribbler inn his/her progress is moving in a staright line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler msut avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble."

So what your syaing is figure out the reason the defender is there. Is he defending the ball or is he there for other reasons. I know what your saying, it's just that the part of the guarding section that says that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor confused me.

I've been doing this for about 10 years and am confident in my game. I just think of these what ifs from time to time and like other opinions.

Re: Re: I guess what I'm confused about..........
 

I'm not sure we're seeing this play unfold the same way.

Re: I think I'm seeing hte light now.
 

No. I'm saying who cares why he's there. Just make sure he's there legally, and in torso-to-torso contact legally means having established LGP. In your first play the dribbler fouled by a block (as I see it). In the second play he fouled by a charge (as I see it). In either case it's a PC.

You're right..................
 

I don't think we're seeing the paly develop the same way.

I am seeing the dribbler drive to the bucket from say the elbow. The defender somes across to help, but cannot get faced up. The defender gets to the spot first and is stationary, but doesn't have initial guarding position because he is not faced up. If htere is contact, is it a block or a charge. Ususally this is called a block, but I'm not sure.

If everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor, then why all this talk of initial guarding position?

Re: You're right..................
 

I see your point. You say it means knowing "why" the defender is there, I say it's just realizing if he was there or not legally based on the case. OK. In the play as you have written it here I've got a block because you're saying he did not establish LGP - he met one of 2 conditions. In the other case the defender established LGP, he met both conditions by jumping into the path and getting both feet down & facing. Now, in the case where B2 is minding his own business following A2 across the lane I have a block by the dribbler A1 because A1 violated screening principles.

A block ?
 

I'm not sure we can have a block here.
Illini_Ref had the defender, who only had eyes for A2, get charged by the ball handler.
Since the foul is by the ball handler can it really be a block? :)

Re: A block ?
 

Block by A1 (illegal screen) = PC

We agree!

Re: Re: A block ?
 

Yeah, pretty much.

I just didn't see the screen from here, I thought A1 charged stoopid B2. :)