Belmont-UNC: Block/Push/No-call (video)

[BryanV21]

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

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).

[APG]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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).

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

The rule you cite (I'm think you meant 4-23-5a.) says that guarding a moving opponent without the ball:

Time and distance is required to obtain an INITIAL legal position.

Go to 4-23-3 and it tells you what can occur after an initial legal position is obtained. You'll find absolutely nothing that says anything about time or distance. You'll even see that it says once that initial legal guarding position is obtained, that a guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain that position...provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs. Time and distance is only relevant in first obtaining that initial guarding position on a moving opponent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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".

Originally Posted by APG

The rule you cite (I'm think you meant 4-23-5a.) says that guarding a moving opponent without the ball:

Time and distance is required to obtain an INITIAL legal position.

Go to 4-23-3 and it tells you what can occur after an initial legal position is obtained. You'll find absolutely nothing that says anything about time or distance. You'll even see that it says once that initial legal guarding position is obtained, that a guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain that position...provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs. Time and distance is only relevant in first obtaining that initial guarding position on a moving opponent.

^^What he said!

OBTAINING requires time/distance. MAINTAINING does not. If it did, the defense might as well just step out of the way and let the offense get to the basket because that would make it impossible to play defense without committing a foul on every play.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

I think, no I'm sure, you're misunderstanding the rule. Time and distance are a factor when guarding a moving opponent without the ball but NFHS 4-23-5c reads "the distance need not be more than two strides." That would be the distance required for A1 to avoid contact. What you're saying, essentially, is if B1 establishes LGP and continues to move, (s)he has to keep racing backwards away from A1 to avoid any contact...which doesn't make sense. Once B1 establishes LGP, if (s)he maintains LGP the onus is on A1 to avoid illegal contact.


Take a look at NCAAM/W 4-17-6. It's virtually the same as NFHS 4-23-3
Art. 6. To maintain a legal guarding position after the initial position has been attained, the guard:
a. Is not required to continue having the torso face the opponent;
b. Cannot have either foot out of bounds;
c. May raise the hands or may jump within her own vertical plane;
d. May shift to maintain guarding position in the path of the dribbler, provided that the guard does not charge into the dribbler or otherwise cause contact;
e. May move laterally or obliquely to maintain position provided such a move is not toward the opponent when contact occurs;
f. Is not required to have the feet on the playing court when shifting in the path of the dribbler or when moving laterally or obliquely; and
g. May turn or duck to absorb shock when contact by the dribbler is imminent. In such a case, the dribbler shall not be absolved from the responsibility of contact.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

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?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by APG

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?

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.