The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2012, 06:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 85
Everyone is entitled to a spot

B1 standing in the lane facing A's basket. Guarding no one. A1 grabs rebound at other end of court and goes full speed for,a layup and plows into back of B1. I have some very senior officials saying block on B1. Telling me that B1 did not have a LGP. I know this is a player control foul on A1. Can someone help me out with some fodder to convince these guys. I don't think LGP has anything to do with this play. Is 10-6-7 convincing enough?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2012, 06:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triad zebra View Post
B1 standing in the lane facing A's basket. Guarding no one. A1 grabs rebound at other end of court and goes full speed for,a layup and plows into back of B1. I have some very senior officials saying block on B1. Telling me that B1 did not have a LGP. I know this is a player control foul on A1. Can someone help me out with some fodder to convince these guys. I don't think LGP has anything to do with this play. Is 10-6-7 convincing enough?
While they are correct in that player B1 didn't have LGP, that doesn't make it a foul on B1. Lack of LGP only removes the right of B1 to be moving to maintain position, to jump, or to raise their arms (verticality). If they are not doing any of those things when their is torso to torso contact, they can't be guilty of a foul.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2012, 07:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
While they are correct in that player B1 didn't have LGP, that doesn't make it a foul on B1. Lack of LGP only removes the right of B1 to be moving to maintain position, to jump, or to raise their arms (verticality). If they are not doing any of those things when their is torso to torso contact, they can't be guilty of a foul.
You say torso to torso. But if A1 displaces B1 regardless of where the contact is if a foul is going to be called it would be PC correct?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2012, 08:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 23
his point is that if B1 has any limb extended, and contact is on that limb, there could be a blocking foul.
__________________
I left my wallet in the car, can you get lunch and I'll getcha back next time? Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 11, 2012, 09:17pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 12,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
While they are correct in that player B1 didn't have LGP, that doesn't make it a foul on B1. Lack of LGP only removes the right of B1 to be moving to maintain position, to jump, or to raise their arms (verticality). If they are not doing any of those things when their is torso to torso contact, they can't be guilty of a foul.
By what I heard in camps this summer, there may be a move afoot at the NCAA-M's level to deem this a block by the defender.

Not advocating or rejecting, just saying what I heard more than once over the summer.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 05:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
By what I heard in camps this summer, there may be a move afoot at the NCAA-M's level to deem this a block by the defender.

Not advocating or rejecting, just saying what I heard more than once over the summer.
Wouldn't be the first time NCAA officials went outside the rules to call a block when the rules said it was a charge. (semi-circle)

Truthfully, this one (running into the back of a stationary opponent) is just not practical. You'd have offensive players looking for defenders looking the other way just to run into them.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 07:44am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 12,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Wouldn't be the first time NCAA officials went outside the rules to call a block when the rules said it was a charge. (semi-circle)

Truthfully, this one (running into the back of a stationary opponent) is just not practical. You'd have offensive players looking for defenders looking the other way just to run into them.
It's not the officials having this conversation, it's supervisors.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 08:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triad zebra View Post
B1 standing in the lane facing A's basket. Guarding no one. A1 grabs rebound at other end of court and goes full speed for,a layup and plows into back of B1. I have some very senior officials saying block on B1. Telling me that B1 did not have a LGP. I know this is a player control foul on A1. Can someone help me out with some fodder to convince these guys. I don't think LGP has anything to do with this play. Is 10-6-7 convincing enough?
Read the definition of guarding in Rule 4. 4-23-1 I believe it is.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dixie
Posts: 71
According to 4-23-2 and -3, we must have INITIAL legal guarding position (both feet touching the playing court AND the front of the guard's torso facing the opponent). Then, after INITIAL has been established, the guard, among other things, may "turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact."

Note that after INITIAL lgp has been established, the guard may have both feet off the floor, move laterally or obliquely, raise hands vertically, etc.

This brings in to play something I believe some in my association have been calling incorrectly for years: the slight tilt backward by the defender who has lgp before contact actually occurs. Isn't it clear by the above rules reference (especially 3c) that even if the defender who has INITIAL lgp starts moving backward early to absorb the imminent contact, AND contact does occur, he is still in lgp? "But Coach, he flopped!"
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:11am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
You're right, this should be a charge, provided there is still enough contact to warrant a foul.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Whitten View Post
According to 4-23-2 and -3, we must have INITIAL legal guarding position (both feet touching the playing court AND the front of the guard's torso facing the opponent). Then, after INITIAL has been established, the guard, among other things, may "turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact."

Note that after INITIAL lgp has been established, the guard may have both feet off the floor, move laterally or obliquely, raise hands vertically, etc.

This brings in to play something I believe some in my association have been calling incorrectly for years: the slight tilt backward by the defender who has lgp before contact actually occurs. Isn't it clear by the above rules reference (especially 3c) that even if the defender who has INITIAL lgp starts moving backward early to absorb the imminent contact, AND contact does occur, he is still in lgp? "But Coach, he flopped!"
The first two paragraphs are irrelevant to the OP.

In the last, if the falling back is slight then call the charge (assuming the other conditions are met). But, sometimes the defender falls so much that either there isn't any contact or the defender already put himself at a disadvantage and the contact didn't add to it, so the contact now becomes incidental.

(Not to say that "some in (your) association" aren't being too generous to the offense on some of the plays.)
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
It's not the officials having this conversation, it's supervisors.
The point remains the same regardless of who is discussing it. It doesn't have any rule support and it is problematic at best.

Why should a stationary player have to step out of a spot they legally obtained just to avoid a foul when an opponent chooses to run into them? There is no fundamental reason to make that a block. There is no problem that it is solving. It is merely someone trying to find (or create) a reason not to call a charge again.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 06:05pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 12,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
The point remains the same regardless of who is discussing it. It doesn't have any rule support and it is problematic at best.

Why should a stationary player have to step out of a spot they legally obtained just to avoid a foul when an opponent chooses to run into them? There is no fundamental reason to make that a block. There is no problem that it is solving. It is merely someone trying to find (or create) a reason not to call a charge again.
Am I supposed to answer that? What are you going to do if the NCAA-Men decide that's how they want the play adjudicated?
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 12, 2012, 08:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 435
LGP does not apply?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triad zebra View Post
B1 standing in the lane facing A's basket. Guarding no one. A1 grabs rebound at other end of court and goes full speed for,a layup and plows into back of B1. I have some very senior officials saying block on B1. Telling me that B1 did not have a LGP. I know this is a player control foul on A1. Can someone help me out with some fodder to convince these guys. I don't think LGP has anything to do with this play. Is 10-6-7 convincing enough?
IMHO you can throw LGP as well as all of 4-23 out the window in this situation because as the OP states: "B1 is guarding no one." It seems to me the position/action of B1 more accurately falls into the definition of screening (4-40) rather than guarding in that B1 is legally delaying or preventing an opponent from reaching a desired position. Furthermore B1's position/action is described by all the legal screening requirements listed in
4-40-2. It makes sense, then, that A1 would be expected to avoid contact as stated in 4-40-7. Your thoughts?
__________________
The rule book is pretty much black and white; but it needs to be read, reviewed and revised.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 13, 2012, 12:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyu2 View Post
IMHO you can throw LGP as well as all of 4-23 out the window in this situation because as the OP states: "B1 is guarding no one."

Your thoughts?
I think 4-23-1 is most DEFINITELY pertinent.

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are every player entitled to a vertical position on the court? MiamiWadeCounty Basketball 16 Mon Mar 05, 2012 09:52am
Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court MiamiWadeCounty Basketball 11 Tue Oct 18, 2011 01:23pm
Am I entitled to my spot? tjchamp Basketball 32 Fri Jan 15, 2010 02:04am
Who Entitled to the base? tibear Baseball 15 Wed Mar 14, 2007 07:28am
Who is entitled to the ball? Fungo Basketball 19 Thu Feb 14, 2002 03:51pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1