Dribbler cuts in front of defender

[JeffTheRef]

With 2:17 to go in Syracuse/Auburn, I thought I saw the perfect case, rarely see, even more rarely called. Anyone else agree. The freshman point guard for Syracuse, trying to take time off, dribbled into the front court and cut in front of the defender giving the moving defender less than a step to stop. Shoulda foul on Syracuse . . .

[Mark Dexter]

Did the defender stop?

(If so, no foul - even though he didn't have to stop.)

Was there contact?

(If not, no foul.)

[JeffTheRef]

didn't give the defender time to stop. In this case, I believe, the interpretation is that this is the equivalent of action away from the ball, where time and distance are always relevant. Foul was called on the defender. It should have been on the dribbler.

[ChuckElias]

I'd have to see it, but the chances are very slim that I'm going to call a player control foul in a situation like that. Hard to consider the dribbler to be "screening" in this situation. Rather, it would seem to me to be incumbent on the defender to be aware of where the ball is. It's not up to the dribbler to give the defender time to stop.

Chuck

[Bart Tyson]

I agree with Chuck, The defender did not beat the dribbler to the spot.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I do not have my rule books in front of me. But if one goes to the personal foul section of Rule 10, as well as the definitions of guarding and screening in Rule 4, in both the NFHS and NCAA rules books, one will find the information to make the correct call in this play.

The first thing to remember is that the definition of guarding applies to the defensive team only. The definition of screening applies to all ten players on the court. That means defensive players as well as offensive players can set screens (both legally and illegally). Rule 10 also states that the screening rules apply to the player in control of the ball as well as a player who is not in control of the ball.

For the sake of argument lets change the play so that it reads as such: A1 is dribbling the ball in a straight line down the court with B1 following directly behind A1. It can be said that B1 is guarding A1. If A1 suddenly stops and B1 runs into A1, B1 has committed a personal foul.

But the original play is not as simple as the play that I described in the previous paragraph. B1 is moving in a straight line down the court. He cannot be considered to be guarding A1. A1 dribbles across B1's path and causes B1 to run into him. This is a blocking foul on A1. He took a position in front of a moving player (B1) and did not give B1 time and distance. This would still be a blocking foul by A1 if he moved into B1's path and stopped there. A1 must give time and distance to B1 when setting a screen.

[JRutledge]

Yes Mark, there are multiple fouls in the rulebook too, does not mean I am going to call it. This is not simply good common sense and only looking for trouble, no matter how you explain it.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

JefftheRef,
I think you make an excellent point. That said the vast majority of officials are not going to call anything out of the ordinary. These people are the ones who are worried about standing out.
I did not get to see this play due to regional coverage. If it happens in your game, my advice is to call what you believe is right and hold your head high.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Yes Mark, there are multiple fouls in the rulebook too, does not mean I am going to call it. This is not simply good common sense and only looking for trouble, no matter how you explain it.

Peace

JR, this has nothing to do with multiple fouls. This is a simple play regarding the guarding and screening rules that are in the rules book.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.


JR, this has nothing to do with multiple fouls. This is a simple play regarding the guarding and screening rules that are in the rules book.

Multiple fouls are in the rulebook, and I am not trying to call that. So because you seem to think that you could call a screen on a player with the ball, then call that. But I think it does not make good common sense, especially in the play described. Because if a dribbler runs in front of a defender, I do not think it is a good call to call a foul on the dribbler. I guess then you could say it is a foul in a dribbler is ahead of a defender and stops, you should call a foul on the ball handler no matter what. Not very good common sense. To me that is looking for trouble.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I guess then you could say it is a foul in a dribbler is ahead of a defender and stops, you should call a foul on the ball handler no matter what. Not very good common sense. To me that is looking for trouble.

Peace [/B]

JR, read my orignal post and you will find the answer to you play above because it is the play that I used for the sake of argument.

But what far too many people (coaches, players, fans, Billy Packer, and officials too) forget is that the ball handler does not have carte blanche on the basketball court. The rules were changed regarding this back in the 1950's (read the NFHS Basketball Handbook).

In 31 years of officiating I have only called a player control foul for blocking (illegal screen) on the ball handler only twice. Why, because it happens so rarely. Because it happens so rarely, an official should not call it? Absolutely not. Because the ball handler should not be given an advantage that he is not entitled to just because far too many people do not understand the rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

But what far too many people (coaches, players, fans, Billy Packer, and officials too) forget is that the ball handler does not have carte blanche on the basketball court. The rules were changed regarding this back in the 1950's (read the NFHS Basketball Handbook).

My comments have very little to do with what coaches, players, fans and especially what Billy Packard thinks.

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In 31 years of officiating I have only called a player control foul for blocking (illegal screen) on the ball handler only twice. Why, because it happens so rarely. Because it happens so rarely, an official should not call it? Absolutely not. Because the ball handler should not be given an advantage that he is not entitled to just because far too many people do not understand the rules.

I agree with you about screening principles as it relates to a ball handler. As a matter of fact there was an NCAA play on their video tape that showed a foul called by a stationary ball handler (not dribbling). So I agree with you about a screen. But I do not agree that a active dribbler should be called for a blocking foul because he cut off a defender. I do not think that is a good common sense play to call. I have not read a casebook play (which to me is the most important thing) that backs up your interpretation. All I read you saying is that this should be called based on some obscure wording and reading into the wording and apply it to a very specific situation. If the rule makers had that in mind, then they should at the very least put that in the casebook to have us all understand that interpretation. I just find your interpretation a stretch.

If anyone wonders why I am so against NF tests to determine officiating ability or rules knowledge, this is a perfect example why. Because what you are doing is trying to make something fit that might not be they way the rules people intended. You are using wording to try to connect two different situations.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JRutledge
[/B]

But I do not agree that a active dribbler should be called for a blocking foul because he cut off a defender. I do not think that is a good common sense play to call. I have not read a casebook play (which to me is the most important thing) that backs up your interpretation.
[/B][/QUOTE]NFHS casebook play 10.6.2SitB-COMMENT- "Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear.In this case,the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Just looked up the NCAA reference for the same play:
http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...basketball.pdf

Look at bottom of Page 129 of NCAA Illustrated Book. "Diagram No. 1 illustrates the players moving in parallel paths and in the same direction.Both players had their legal paths established.Diagram No. 2 shows No.4 dribbling into the path of No.5 without giving No. 5 sufficient time and distance to stop or change direction." The call is "Player Control Foul by No. 4". Again,pretty straightforward.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 29th, 2003 at 09:24 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


In this case,the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Again, I will be damned if I call a foul on a dribbler that is being followed closely from behind and stops, then gets run over by that defender, then I turn around and call a foul on the dribbler. I am not going to make that call, just like I am not going to call a multiple foul on two defenders that make contact on a shooter at the same time. I do not think that either is good common sense officiating. If you do, so be it. The defender should not put himself in that situation to begin with. But that is my opinion.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge
The defender should not put himself in that situation to begin with. But that is my opinion.
Peace

You mean that if a defender is dribbling fast, the defender should never get right behind him? What's he supposed to do, just let the guy leave him in the dust?

I agree, it's a tough call. But if A1 clearly changes his path to cut off B1 giving B1 no chance to avoid contact and then there is severe contact so that both players fall down, are you going to call a foul on B1 who clearly did nothing except run in a straight line? I admit, tough call.. but what would you call Rut?

Z