Another DVBOA play

[MathReferee]

Is it just me or does he say "block" right after the whistle? I have block on B42.

[Camron Rust]

I looked at it and thought charge.

Expecting a trick answer, I looked at it over and over trying to see if either defender did anything illegal. They had two feet down, in the path, were not moving, and didn't have their legs extended. I could find nothing they did wrong.

Despite some that believe it is required, there is no requirement that a charge/PC foul occur in the chest. The offensive player knocks two legal defenders off their spot. That is a charge (or maybe a no call)

[MathReferee]

I agree with your assessment of the defenders, except for them not having legs extended. It appears to me as if the offensive player's head and shoulders are past B42's torso before any contact is made between their lower bodies. This suggests to me that B42's legs are outside his frame and the reason I have a block. However, based on responses so far, I appear to be in the minority here.

[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.

[deecee]

On first viewing, and all others after that, all I see is a push by the primary defender that preceded any other contact.

2 Shots for white.

[Mark Padgett]

Toward the end of the first showing of the play on the video, even though a white jerseyed player goes to get the ball, it appears the white players are moving away from the endline and the black players are moving toward inbounding the ball which would indicate the foul called was a charge on the ball handler.

[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.

[maroonx]

White get the foul

Ok guys, do you have a charging foul on white 13? Or do you get the first foul, a push by Black 0? Is this a situation where you call both?

Originally Posted by MathReferee

I agree with your assessment of the defenders, except for them not having legs extended. It appears to me as if the offensive player's head and shoulders are past B42's torso before any contact is made between their lower bodies. This suggests to me that B42's legs are outside his frame and the reason I have a block. However, based on responses so far, I appear to be in the minority here.

As far as I know, having "legs extended" "outside the frame" is not one of the things that makes you lose Legal Guarding Position. As Cameron Rust mentioned, contact does not need to occur in the chest/torso to be a charge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Ok guys, do you have a charging foul on white 13? Or do you get the first foul, a push by Black 0? Is this a situation where you call both?

Well I would hope I picked up the push in the back first. That clearly is a foul to me. I cannot see any reason to call a foul on the two defenders standing together. I probably would have called either nothing on them or a PC foul if the push the in the back was not noticed.

Originally Posted by AremRed

As far as I know, having "legs extended" "outside the frame" is not one of the things that makes you lose Legal Guarding Position. As Cameron Rust mentioned, contact does not need to occur in the chest/torso to be a charge.

Well you must be within your frame, but that does not look like the issue here.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Ok guys, do you have a charging foul on white 13? Or do you get the first foul, a push by Black 0? Is this a situation where you call both?
...

If you rule that B1 pushed A1 how would you justify also calling a foul on A1 for subsequent contact?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

As far as I know, having "legs extended" "outside the frame" is not one of the things that makes you lose Legal Guarding Position. As Cameron Rust mentioned, contact does not need to occur in the chest/torso to be a charge.

While having a limb extended doesn't make a player lose LGP (contact in the torso can still be a charge regardless of the position of the legs and arms), it would be a block (or maybe a hold) if the contact is on the extended limb.

I don't think, however, in this play that either defender had a limb extended. They were both in a natural stance with their feet roughly shoulder width apart. It is quite possible for an opponent to get their head and shoulders by a fully legal defender and still make contact worthy of a charge.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While having a limb extended doesn't make a player lose LGP (contact in the torso can still be a charge regardless of the position of the legs and arms), it would be a block (or maybe a hold) if the contact is on the extended limb.

So if I am a defensive player standing in the lane like this:

and an offensive player decides to clothesline himself on my arm, what did I do wrong?

Here is what 4-23-1 says: "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg into the path of the opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

Shouldn't we read "extending" in this case as happening once the dribbler has started on his path? As in, the dribbler is blowing past me so I extend my arm into his path to stop him. If my arms are extended before the defenders path intersects mine, how is this not legal?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

...
Shouldn't we read "extending" in this case as happening once the dribbler has started on his path? As in, the dribbler is blowing past me so I extend my arm into his path to stop him. If my arms are extended before the defenders path intersects mine, how is this not legal?

You're making up your own interpretation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

So if I am a defensive player standing in the lane like this:

and an offensive player decides to clothesline himself on my arm, what did I do wrong?

Here is what 4-23-1 says: "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg into the path of the opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

Shouldn't we read "extending" in this case as happening once the dribbler has started on his path? As in, the dribbler is blowing past me so I extend my arm into his path to stop him. If my arms are extended before the defenders path intersects mine, how is this not legal?

If the contact is on one of the outstretched arms, then, yes, it's a block.

If the contact is in the torso, then it's a charge despite the outstretched arms.

(In both cases assuming other requirements are met)