Not facing the opponent

[bainsey]

A-1 goes airborne. Defender B-2 has his spot in the lane, but facing in another direction (turned about a 90 degrees from the path of the shooter). Instinctively, the defender jumps, and has clear verticality, but is not facing the shooter when contact is made (shooter's torso into defender's side). This was an easy blocking foul, as the defender wasn't facing the shooter at all.

Generally speaking, and outside of an outstretched limb from the shooter, when would you have a charge -- or nothing -- when contact occurs, and the defender isn't facing the dribbler/shooter?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Generally speaking, and outside of an outstretched limb from the shooter, when would you have a charge -- or nothing -- when contact occurs, and the defender isn't facing the dribbler/shooter?

Whenever the defender is entitled to his spot -- as in your play.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Whenever the defender is entitled to his spot -- as in your play.

Isn't getting to the spot first only half the battle, though? What if you're not facing your opponent (4-23-2b)?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Isn't getting to the spot first only half the battle, though? What if you're not facing your opponent (4-23-2b)?

If the player hadn't jumped, what would you have called?

By the way, it seems to me that LGP is required for airborne verticality to apply. But the alternate question is whether the spot to which a player is entitled includes the air above the floor. I'm not sure it does, as 4-23-1 says the player is entiteld to his spot "on the playing floor."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Isn't getting to the spot first only half the battle, though? What if you're not facing your opponent (4-23-2b)?

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

LGP offers protection to moving defenders. A stationary defender is entitled to his spot on the floor (and the vertical space above it) regardless of whether he has LGP.

[SNIPERBBB]

Facing the opponent would only effect this play if the defender moved away from the spot.

10-6-7

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

LGP offers protection to moving defenders. A stationary defender is entitled to his spot on the floor (and the vertical space above it) regardless of whether he has LGP.

This is spot on with my thinking of the rule.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

LGP offers protection to moving defenders. A stationary defender is entitled to his spot on the floor (and the vertical space above it) regardless of whether he has LGP.

Great explanation +1

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

10-6-7

There it is. That rule says nothing about charging into an opponent with LGP. I'd say 10-6-11 applies here, too.

Thanks for that, and the other feedback. I will now serve a self-imposed one-week suspension for my error.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I will now serve a self-imposed one-week suspension for my error.

Oh please. If I had to take a week off for every error, I'd never be able to post. We're all here to learn and improve, and doing so incurs no penalty.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mbyron

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

LGP offers protection to moving defenders. A stationary defender is entitled to his spot on the floor (and the vertical space above it) regardless of whether he has LGP.

Very well said.

And bainsey, doesn't rule 11-2-4 say that you can't combine self-imposed suspensions with injury recovery time? I think it's clear that they can't be served concurrently. (But I do hope your achilles heals quickly)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And bainsey, doesn't rule 11-2-4 say that you can't combine self-imposed suspensions with injury recovery time?

Not by my interpretation.

Then again, considering my OP, take strong consideration of what that's worth.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not by my interpretation.

Then again, considering my OP, take strong consideration of what that's worth.

[HawkeyeCubP]

-talking about how the defensive player is entitled to their legal spot on the court, resulting in ruling this type of play a PC foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Isn't getting to the spot first only half the battle, though? What if you're not facing your opponent (4-23-2b)?

Then you need to give the moving player time to stop / change direction (not more than two steps).