Sorry, I was wondering how he lost LGP, or never gained it. Which requirement was missing?

As for him moving backwards, he's not required to maintain any speed. He can stop at any moment and if he gets knocked down, it's on the opponent.

I have a feeling you're going to be pretty alone on this one. This has to be a foul of some sort, especially under the new guidelines. There was enough contact there for a foul on UNC.

This may be difficult to codify . . . :confused:

As I said again, screening rules apply. It is always the responsible of the person that is being screened when the screener is moving in the same direction of the person being screened. So you cannot call a foul by rule on a retreating player that basically is setting a screen. And that player setting a screen never stopped or moved towards the opponent to cause contact. So time and distance really do not apply here.

Peace

Really, that is new to me and probably ever other official here.

This is not a a screen. Don't confuse the situation. This is a guarding situation. The rules are similar and the result is largely the same but it isnt' a screen.

Every player is entitled to their spot on the floor, provided he/she got there legally. There is no required speed that a player has to be moving backwards or laterally. So to say that you are not sure who to blame for this contact is to ignore a basic principle of basketball officiating.

And as far as the screening comments made earlier, Camron is correct. This is not a screening situation, it is a guarding situation. Offensive players do not get to run over legal defenders.

Yeah, same as Camron. The Belmont player was the defender so LGP rules do apply.


As to whether he obtained LGP, the answer is yes. The UNC player had two strides – at least – to be able to avoid the contact and didn’t.

By the way how does one move “backwards and laterally correctly?” The defender had established LGP and never moved forward into the offensive player. Given those two elements what did he do wrong that could have caused him to possibly be blamed for the contact? There’s no requirement for a push/TC foul that a player lower his shoulder, etc. and there’s also no requirement that the defender stand like a statue and get RTFO. You may opt not to blow in the situation – and I would disagree – but if there’s a call in this case it really has to go against the offense.

My understanding of the rule is that the defender must move in the same direction and at the same speed as the offensive player. The defensive player clearly moves sideways and at a slower pace than the offensive player.

To say it another way, should the offensive player move laterally slower? Is the fact that he's moving quicker than the defender his fault?

Both the offensive and defensive player have the right to move to that spot on the floor. And you can't tell me the defender wasn't moving sideways on that play. In fact, he almost seems to "belly up" the offensive player, thus creating the initial contact.

If the offensive player was running straight at the defender, that's another story, but in this case there was lateral movement.

First, please watch the video again. My eyes may not be great, even with corrected vision, but I'm not seeing any sideways movement by the defender.

Second, you won't find a requirement in the NCAAM/W rule books that a defender has to move in the same direction and at the same speed as the offensive player. Defenders can move any direction other than into the offensive player, i.e., they can't create contact. If the speed/direction requirement you describe existed, defenders would never be able to draw PC fouls.

Is the fact A1 is moving faster than B1 A1's fault? No. As a matter of fact it should be expected because A1 knows where he wants to go. However, if B1 gets to that spot first it's his, no matter how fast B1 moved to get there. You said it yourself: Both the offensive and defensive player have the right to move to that spot on the floor. Whoever gets there first - while following the rules - wins. B1 was retreating and got there first.

Where did you hear this speed requirement? I don't think there's a rule set that requires an opponent with a legal position to maintain any type of speed comparable with the opponent. Now the speed of the opponent may dictate how much space/strides/steps one may have to give before he is legal, but if he's legal already, then he's good to go. Perhaps you're confusing this rule with something else? :confused:

I'm a high school official, so perhaps the rules are different at the collegiate level. But in the NFHS rule book, Rule 4-24 Art. 5 says "The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact".

The offensive player is trying to run to his left (the guards right). Not by much, but the offensive player is not running directly into the guard. The guard is moving a bit laterally, and while doing so he's not giving the offensive player the time and/or distance to adjust his path in order to avoid contact.

The question is whether the offensive player is moving directly into the defender, rather than trying to go around. Personally, I see slight lateral movement. Of course, the angle of the camera to the play is not that good, so it's nearly impossible to see it clearly. Which is why, as I originally stated, that I'm fine with pretty much any call (PC foul, blocking foul, or no call at all).

I wasn't using the correct terminology or wording, as the rule book says "time and/or distance" as opposed to the speed thing. But the effect is the same.

An opponent has to give time and distance when he's trying to establish an initial guarding position on a player without the ball (one or two steps depending on the speed of the moving player)...if he's established it already, then he doesn't have to give time or distance if he's doing what he needs to legally maintain that position...aka moving lateral or obliquely to the player's path.

Rule 4-24 Art.5.a, in reference to guarding a moving opponent without the ball, says "time and distance are factors required to obtain initial legal guarding position". In Art.5.b it says "The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact".

If the guard did not move, and the offensive player ran into him, then a PC foul would be justified thanks to Art.5.a. However, there was movement, so we move to Art.5.b, in which case a foul against the defender would be justified.