Another DVBOA play

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why not both?

I'm simply asking if the rule can be read and understood a different way. I read all the case plays involving 4-23-1, and none of them explain whether "extending arm, hip, leg, etc. into the opponents path" means "extending those extremities after the dribblers path takes him into the defenders extremity" or "extending those extremities before the dribblers path takes him into the defenders extremity".

If the first, then the call would be a block/hold/illegal use of hands. If the latter, the call would not penalize a legal defender.

"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent...."

It's also a foul if a vertical defender brings his arms down in front of him and the shooter jumps and contacts the defender's arms.

Defenders are entitled to the verticle space within their body width.

[bob jenkins]

It's the "cylinder of verticality"

[scrounge]

Can't really see well from this angle, but it seems that B42 leans into shooter's path and tries to close off the opening.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

My nomination for "Image O' The Month".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why not both?

I'm simply asking if the rule can be read and understood a different way.

Sure, it can be read and understood differently, but you really don't want to be a lone ranger with your interpretation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

You really don't want to be a lone ranger with your interpretation.

You guys are really trying to get me suspended from the Forum (again). Well, I'm not taking the bait (this time). I've posted too many off topic posts lately, so I need to reign it back a little.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You guys are really trying to get me suspended from the Forum (again).

You don't need our help for that......

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You guys are really trying to get me suspended from the Forum (again). Well, I'm not taking the bait (this time). I've posted too many off topic posts lately, so I need to reign it back a little.

How about stop making everything a joke when people are trying to have a serious discussion or debate? We do not need a picture for everything.

Peace

[OKREF]

42 looks like he leans and sticks out his knee/leg. Block.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

42 looks like he leans and sticks out his knee/leg. Block.

I just don't see that. At most, 42's feet are 12-16" apart. That is a pretty normal stance. I don't think he could have been positioned any more legally.

And regarding the push from behind that others have mentioned. I have nothing on that. Yes, it happened, but it was just a split second before the collision and had no effect on the play. The dribbler/driver was going to crash into the other two defenders with or without that extra nudge and that is the play to judge.

[JugglingReferee]

I also believe that 42's knee was outside his cylinder.

I do see the push that was mentioned by multiple previous posters. I wouldn't be surprised if that one is missed or even not called because it's effect was immaterial and minor in comparison to the knee-to-knee contact.

I'm leaning to the block rather than the PC. I don't think a no-call here is correct.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I also believe that 42's knee was outside his cylinder.

I do see the push that was mentioned by multiple previous posters. I wouldn't be surprised if that one is missed or even not called because it's effect was immaterial and minor in comparison to the knee-to-knee contact.

I'm leaning to the block rather than the PC. I don't think a no-call here is correct.

Regardless of anything else, I agree with that.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I just don't see that. At most, 42's feet are 12-16" apart. That is a pretty normal stance. I don't think he could have been positioned any more legally.

And regarding the push from behind that others have mentioned. I have nothing on that. Yes, it happened, but it was just a split second before the collision and had no effect on the play. The dribbler/driver was going to crash into the other two defenders with or without that extra nudge and that is the play to judge.

I agree he does get there, I just see him move his right knee out to the right. I don't see a push at all. The trailing defender does get his arm out, but any contact happens after the crash. I also agree this isn't a pass.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I just don't see that. At most, 42's feet are 12-16" apart. That is a pretty normal stance. I don't think he could have been positioned any more legally.

And regarding the push from behind that others have mentioned. I have nothing on that. Yes, it happened, but it was just a split second before the collision and had no effect on the play. The dribbler/driver was going to crash into the other two defenders with or without that extra nudge and that is the play to judge.

I do disagree with officiating based on what will/may happen. The order of events are push then crash. Whether or not the ball handler was going to crash into the defenders is immaterial IMO.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by brainbrian

NCAA 10-1-8 "A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in the dribbler’s path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is sufficient to provide a reasonable chance for the dribbler to pass through without contact."

I know NFHS has a similar rule and I do not think the offensive player had enough space to make it between the two defenders.

Here is the NFHS rule.

Rule: 4-7-2
c. There must be reasonable space between two defensive players or a defensive player and a boundary line to allow the dribbler to continue in his/her path. If there is less than 3 feet of space, the dribbler has the greater responsibility for the contact.

This seems like the poster play for this rule, unless you call the push first.