NCAA Restricted Area Play

[Scrapper1]

This play actually occurred in my scrimmage on Wednesday. Looking for thoughts.

A1's try is successful. B1 has the ball out of bounds for the ensuing throw-in. Due to a brain-cramp or something, B1's throw-in goes directly to A1. A1 catches the throw-in pass just outside the free throw lane at around the second hash-mark.

B1 steps inbounds and establishes an initial defensive position within the RA. A1 drives to the basket and there is contact on B1's torso.

My initial reaction, and the call I actually made, was a blocking foul on B1 because he was inside the RA. But after the scrimmage, I began to wonder if B1 should have been considered to be the primary defender.

It's not an "outnumbered" fast break. There wasn't really another defender around. The only "exception" to the RA rule that might fit here is that it might be considered similar to the "rebound and immediate drive" type of play.

(In the NBA, this play originates in the Lower Defensive Box, so the RA is not a factor.)

Ok, now for the sake of argument, would the call be different if B1 had been passing the ball toward B2 and A1 stole the pass (meaning that a second player from Team B was in the area)?

[twocentsworth]

the RA only comes into play in specific scenarios....1) when the primary defender has been beaten (with or without the ball) and 2) during an odd-numbered fastbreak/transition play.

when either of those plays occurs, your mind should immediately think "RA rules"...

what you described is neither. the primary defender established legal guarding position and took the contact in the torso. illegal contact occurred and the ball handler/shooter was responsible for it...charge!

of course, these interps are so "new" to NCAA-M, that Art Hyland and John Adams will no doubt be advising how they want these plays called throughout the season.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

the RA only comes into play in specific scenarios....1) when the primary defender has been beaten (with or without the ball) and 2) during an odd-numbered fastbreak/transition play.

Yup, that's why I was questioning myself afterward. But it just seemed wrong for a player to come from out of bounds and then establish a position in the RA.

[Camron Rust]

I think you called it in the spirit of the rule. He was essentially a secondary defender. There was no primary defender. He stepped into the path of A1 within the RA having come from a position where he was not guarding A1. He didn't come into the RA while guarding A1.

[tref]

Interesting! Should we consider a b/c turnover with an immediate dribble drive to be a transition fastbreak? If there is no primary defender on a turnover should we consider all others to be a secondary?

[Scrapper1]

I talked about this play with my partners at a scrimmage today. One thought was that maybe this could be considered a 1-on-0 "fast break" since there were no legal defenders between A1 and the basket at the start of the play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This play actually occurred in my scrimmage on Wednesday. Looking for thoughts.

A1's try is successful. B1 has the ball out of bounds for the ensuing throw-in. Due to a brain-cramp or something, B1's throw-in goes directly to A1. A1 catches the throw-in pass just outside the free throw lane at around the second hash-mark.

B1 steps inbounds and establishes an initial defensive position within the RA. A1 drives to the basket and there is contact on B1's torso.

My initial reaction, and the call I actually made, was a blocking foul on B1 because he was inside the RA. But after the scrimmage, I began to wonder if B1 should have been considered to be the primary defender.

This play is on the NCAAW video posted today(I think). B1 is a primary defender and can draw a charge.

[VTOfficial]

Bob,

You are correct. This is the third play in the video and is the almost exact situation described in the OP. The ruling is a charge as B1 is the primary defender in this one-on-one situation.

Brian

[bballrules]

What seems to be missing from the conversation is the actual rule: A secondary defender may not establish LGP in the RA. Forget the NCAAW LDB for a moment. The only way a defender may legally earn a player-control foul is if she establishes LGP outside the RA and maintains LGP back into the RA and then the illegal contact occurs.

Many of the other posts seem to miss this very point and are more focused on "outnumbering fast breaks".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bballrules

What seems to be missing from the conversation is the actual rule: A secondary defender may not establish LGP in the RA. Forget the NCAAW LDB for a moment. The only way a defender may legally earn a player-control foul is if she establishes LGP outside the RA and maintains LGP back into the RA and then the illegal contact occurs.

Many of the other posts seem to miss this very point and are more focused on "outnumbering fast breaks".

Or, perhaps the rule has changed in the 4 years since the thread was started. (I didn't go back and read the posts or watch the video to check)