Another DVBOA play
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CGjBB63ijxo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Is this a NFHS 10.6.7 situation?

Sure looks like it!

I agree. I'm charging white #3 with the foul on this play.

Defenders did nothing wrong. What did the trail call on this play?

Should be two fouls on white. after all, if we can have a multiple foul by the defense, we should have the mirror image by the offensive player. ;)

Don't think we can have multiple fouls by one player, but should have PC.

My guess is he called a block since he's pointing at the players on the floor as opposed to just coming up with a PC signal.

I'm a bit mystified as to why the L didn't put air in his whistle on this play. Not even a flinch. This could be a number of things but "no call" wouldn't appear to be on the menu.

It's possible that the trail called a push on the trailing defender.

Good point. He did push him. But with the title I only focused on the two defenders in front. But then again without the information on the tape, it is hard to tell what the official actually called.

Peace

Didn't even pick that up on the first viewing. Yes, that could be a possibility.

It's a pretty big push, too.

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

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Peace

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.

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

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.

So if I am a defensive player standing in the lane like this:
http://rglongpre.ca/naturistlens/wp-...ian-man-19.jpg
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?

You're making up your own interpretation.

I do not recall that the player in question was clotheslined and what I saw was a normal position with their body. Hard to tell anything else, but contact was certainly with the leg of one player and the lower body on the other.

As BNR stated, it sounds like you are making up an interpretation here.

Peace

The play in question did not involve a clothesline, I posited my own situation.

All interpretations are, by definition, made up.

No they are not. They are made to illustrate the intent of the rule and how it is to be applied based on the position of the rulesmakers. So not they are not made up. That is why the NF produces a Casebook and a Simplified and Illustrated book to fill in the blanks. People often take an interpretation too far which I feel you are doing here. I know you did not say there was a clothesline, but no one said it was OK to clothesline someone just because they got to a sport first.

Peace

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)

Are the smiley face boxer shorts part of the torso? Rule quote please. :)

Are you trying to learn how to properly adjudicate a play or win a battle of semantics?

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.

It's the "cylinder of verticality" ;)

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.

Bravo ...
 

My nomination for "Image O' The Month".

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

Tempting, Very Tempting ...
 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've watched this video several times, and can't rule the contact by the primary defender as a "push." Yes, he "finds" the ball-handler, but the contact of his right hand on the back of the ball-handler has no effect, as the offensive player is moving away from that minimal contact, and the action of the defender's arm/hand is quite relaxed.
At first look, the play seems to be a block on 42. Defender 33 seems to vacate his position, and has very little, if any contact on the ball-handler. From the camera angle, it's a 50-50 call, but trying to visualize the impact from a floor-level, the trailing official could better see the contact - high on the defender's right leg, continued sideways movement of the defender, etc.
All considered, I like a charge call. Also, the Lead seems fine with whatever the Trail called, as his demeanor after the call is totally relaxed.

That's my take. If the defenders in the lane weren't there and the one behind did what he did I doubt I'd have a whistle since that arm, IMO, didn't affect RSBQ.


The L can "seem fine" with the call all he wants but there was an absolute train wreck in his PCA. He needs to have a whistle if only to show he's paying attention.

The L can "seem fine" with the call all he wants but there was an absolute train wreck in his PCA. He needs to have a whistle if only to show he's paying attention.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the L needed to be involved. My characterization of his demeanor was intended to bring the discussion to this point. I didn't see anything in the play that told me he was occupied with a match-up that didn't allow him to see the contact. Now, some assignors/evaluators want the T to stay with the play that originates in his area, all the way to the basket. Maybe the Lead was following that guideline, and would have had a whistle if the T had not made the call (?)

I have a push by the trail defender on this play. I have nothing on the shooter or the two defenders in the path of the shooter.

I'm looking at this play from a "science" standpoint and than an "art" standpoint. Initially, the drive is coming out of T's area. At the point of contact, you can't even see the T in the picture. The L is already set at the end line and ready to receive the play. Initially, you want the T to be at the 28' mark which you can see marked on the court. When there is contact in the lane, there is a good 1-2 seconds before you see the trail in the picture. I would like to see the T already connected to this play and walk it to the rim so that when contact occurs, it is more viable and believable. I think the L could be more at a close down/pinch the paint mode. As far as the "art" side, the official does not give a preliminary in the video, unless he gave it before you see him in the frame. You just see him pointing. I think he could project more strength, which would have come from giving a pre signal. A lot have commented on the push before the contact. Ask yourself this: which is the elephant and which is the ant? I don't think the "push" had any effect on the offensive player, but the contact caused by him was the greater of the two, or the elephant, IMO. Great play for discussion!

White get the foul

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WcQzdYk7QHE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>