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

Thoughts?

I've often wondered - revised guidelines or not - how these end up being no-calls but that's just me.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pC_fQfmoqL0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ship it.

Agree....blatant and obvious push on UNC. There is no reason to not call that at any stage of any game.

EDIT....and I see that Belmont was able to still pull out the win without getting that deserved call so late in the game....justice prevails. Interesting stat from the game...Belmont was whistleed for substantially more fouls than UNC and UNC shot over twice as many FTs yet Belmont made nearly the same number of FTs as UNC missed more FTs than Belmont attempted....91% vs 46%...ouch.

I'm not that experienced with 3-man; Since all the players were in the backcourt due to the press, where should the Lead be in this situation? I'm assuming that they wouldn't be all the way down on the other end of the court if no players are there yet.

Since the contact was between the players closest to the Lead (wherever the lead was), would this be the Lead's call? Or is the Lead supposed to stay out of anything in the back court -- meaning that this is the C's primary?

L should have been somewhere between the 28' mark at the other end of the court and the division line.

C or L can get this (C is probably looking at the players along the FT line)

The new L should be a step or two ahead of the last player. Nine players are in UNC’s front court when the play begins so the L is likely ahead of the last Belmont defender. In terms of who has what, the C covers the area between the top of each key. The contact was right at the top of the key so it was C’s call.

Should be C's call, but he appears to be looking at all of the guys in the middle of the lane. I would think he would have seen this anyway, but one never knows.

I don't blame the officials at all for eating their whistles on the play.

The Belmont player never got legal guarding position, while the player for UNC didn't extend his arms or commit any act like he was pushing. I know the contact was a bit much, but contact alone does not mean there was a foul. If it wasn't for the fact that the defender was a little off balance I bet he doesn't fall, and nobody questions the no-call. But people see a player fall and think there must be a foul somewhere.

Most of the time when there is a "crash" like this, there is a penalty somewhere. But this looks like one of those cases where there isn't.

LGP is not the issue. He set a screen and was moving in the same direction of the opponent and got run over. LGP applies to the player with the ball, not an off ball player.

Peace

doh!

Even if LGP is required, he certainly does have it.

Two feet down, facing his opponent. Moving backwards and laterally the whole time, thus never losing LGP.

I'm not sure that's how I see it, but if I were an observer I wouldn't make a big deal about it either way.

Curiously, which part do you think he's missing?

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

Watching this in real time I can see this call going either way. When the play is slowed down: Seems as if the defensive player was anticipating the contact and started to fall prior to.

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.

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.

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.

^^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.