Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Is that case from the 2013-14 case book? Because 10.6.11 (b) in that case book seems to support my side.

In part a of the situation, the screener (A1) is called for a blocking foul, apparently because A1 is so close that B1 cannot avoid A1 and contact results.

10.6.11D (b). 2012-13 book (what I have handy)

My typo.

[BryanV21]

I don't like that the rule book does not take into account a player looking away from the defender in order to catch a pass, but alas... it doesn't.

This would fall under ART. 5 of the section on guarding, as the defender was initially defending a moving opponent without the ball. To obtain LGP in this case time and distance are factors. However, when the defender got set the offensive player had time and space to avoid contact... he just didn't see that he had to do so. Unfortunately for myself and that offensive player, being able to see the defender being set doesn't matter. It should... but it doesn't.

deecee mentioned that line of sight doesn't matter, and I missed that.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

10.6.11D (b). 2012-13 book (what I have handy)

My typo.

I don't have that one handy, so I'll take your word for it.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

10.6.11D (b). 2012-13 book (what I have handy)

My typo.

I couldn't stop myself from finding last year's case book and looking up that play. Good looking out.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't like that the rule book does not take into account a player looking away from the defender in order to catch a pass, but alas... it doesn't.

This would fall under ART. 5 of the section on guarding, as the defender was initially defending a moving opponent without the ball. To obtain LGP in this case time and distance are factors. However, when the defender got set the offensive player had time and space to avoid contact... he just didn't see that he had to do so. Unfortunately for myself and that offensive player, being able to see the defender being set doesn't matter. It should... but it doesn't.

deecee mentioned that line of sight doesn't matter, and I missed that.

You don't have to like it. Many of us don't like the "fashion police" rules but they exist and we're supposed to adjudicate them.

You're correct in one aspect: B1 was initially defending an opponent who did not have the ball. However, when the offensive player gains control of the ball his/her status and the rules governing the player defending him/her change. There's nothing in the rules that says "the offensive player must be able to see the defender before (s)he can be called for a foul." By rule, once the offense has the ball avoiding contact with a defender who has established and maintained LGP is on the ball handler/dribbler.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Rule 4-12
ART 1... A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

The player is clearly not dribbling the ball at the time of contact, so would you say he is holding it? I wouldn't. Because when I read the dribbling part of the equation, "holding" tells me the player is standing still with the ball... which the player clearly isn't standing still with the ball.

As for this earlier statement, try this: A1 takes a jump shot and it's rebounded by airborne B1. When B1 secures the rebound, B1 has player control even though (s)he may not have returned to the floor. I think it's safe to say in that scenario that B1 is not standing still.

[walt]

10.6.11 D

A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 BEFORE receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and BEFORE TAKING A STEP contacts B1.

RULING:

In both (a) and (b) A1 is responsible for the contact.

In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two steps prior to contact.

In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 HAS THE BALL, the contact is charging by A1.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by walt

10.6.11 D

A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 BEFORE receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and BEFORE TAKING A STEP contacts B1.

RULING:

In both (a) and (b) A1 is responsible for the contact.

In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two steps prior to contact.

In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 HAS THE BALL, the contact is charging by A1.

Yup. (a) is a screening play governed by time/distance. (b) is not. It's an LGP block/charge play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The offensive player had no chance to catch that ball, which he is entitled to provided he doesn't push another player to do so, and avoid contact.

On the other hand, the defender had more than enough opportunity to set himself up in a way to avoid a collision.

I know the rule book doesn't use fairness, but if I can interpret a rule in a such a way to make things fair... I will.

PS... this is why I said what I did about the rule book being set-up to favor the defense. Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact. That is, unless you say he shouldn't be allowed to catch that ball in the first place.

I said this in another thread, it's one thing to disagree about judgment, quite another to tell veterans their interpretation of a rule is wrong.

And this is coming from one of the very few posters (maybe the only) who agreed with it being a block. But that is based on what I perceived as forward movement by the defender, not a non-existent interpretation of a rule.

Your career will hit a dam if you continue swimming up stream.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I said this in another thread, it's one thing to disagree about judgment, quite another to tell veterans their interpretation of a rule is wrong.

And this is coming from one of the very few posters (maybe the only) who agreed with it being a block. But that is based on what I perceived as forward movement by the defender, not a non-existent interpretation of a rule.

Your career will hit a dam if you continue swimming up stream.

I'm surprised anyone's trying. I gave up at "If I can interpret ..." something to fit his own sense of fairness, he's going to do so. Nevermind that we have Rules Interpretors whose jobs it is to do this interpreting for us and tell us how the entity we work for wants us to officiate. Interpretation is apparently something left to his own whim to allow him to enforce his own personal sense of justice, and to fight the good fight against the obvious bias of the rules in favor of the defense...

He has no interest in learning what the RIGHT answer is if he can justify in his own mind continuing with the wrong answer. We've all worked with that guy in the past. It's always a freaking mess. Sometimes these guys can be caught as rookies and fixed. But by his own words, his career path is just fine thankyouverymuch... Trying to fix it is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm surprised anyone's trying.

Trying to fix it is a waste of time.

I'm fine with what he is doing. Some people (myself included) prefer to not just accept the status quo right away, and take longer to grasp why certain rules are the way they are.

BryanV21 has shown a willingness to learn and change his viewpoint in other threads (as well as this one) so I will give him some rope.

[ballgame99]

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

Screening rules apply.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

You have missed the crux of the discussion. 2 different scenarios with 2 different outcomes.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

What's the key difference between LGP rules and screening rules? There's the answer to why this really matters in this case.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

NFHS Screen Rules 4-40-5 and 7 would apply. And the officials' judgement of whether the screener is "outside the visual field" of the moving player would affect the call/no-call.