Block, charge, no call travel?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The offensive player lands with both feet. Assuming that means he had adequate space to land, sounds like a PC to me.

How much space there is to land is of no consequence under the rules. If the player with the ball gets a foot on the court prior to any contact occurring, then the defender cannot be penalized for anything he did while the offensive player was airborne. That part of the action is now meaningless to the ensuing collision.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by APG

Close visualization of the play you're talking about:



And the discussion thread: Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

Note: Adams initially said this was a block...then retracted that statement and said it was a charge

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How much space there is to land is of no consequence under the rules. If the player with the ball gets a foot on the court prior to any contact occurring, then the defender cannot be penalized for anything he did while the offensive player was airborne. That part of the action is now meaningless to the ensuing collision.

Thank you lads.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. By the way, I think that is Joe DeRosa in the picture at the start of the video.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How much space there is to land is of no consequence under the rules. If the player with the ball gets a foot on the court prior to any contact occurring, then the defender cannot be penalized for anything he did while the offensive player was airborne. That part of the action is now meaningless to the ensuing collision.

B1 takes a spot on the court which would have been the landing spot for airborne A1. A1 lands with feet spread wide straddling the feet of B1, at the same time leaning backward in at attempt to avoid the contact but is unable to do so. This is a foul on B1.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

B1 takes a spot on the court which would have been the landing spot for airborne A1. A1 lands with feet spread wide straddling the feet of B1, at the same time leaning backward in at attempt to avoid the contact but is unable to do so. This is a foul on B1.

The difference is, A1 was already airborne before B1 took his/her spot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

The difference is, A1 was already airborne before B1 took his/her spot.

According to Nevada, once A1's feet touch the floor, it doesn't matter if B1 got into the spot before A1 went airborne.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Adam

According to Nevada, once A1's feet touch the floor, it doesn't matter if B1 got into the spot before A1 went airborne.

And Nevada is correct. A player who gains control of the ball while airborne must expect to be guarding immediately upon returning top the court. That has been the NFHS and NCAA Rules committees' position when the NBCUSC adopted the guarding rule over 60 years ago which is still the rule today.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

And Nevada is correct. A player who gains control of the ball while airborne must expect to be guarding immediately upon returning top the court. That has been the NFHS and NCAA Rules committees' position when the NBCUSC adopted the guarding rule over 60 years ago which is still the rule today.

MTD, Sr.

The point of contention is this. Nevada is saying it is impossible for the foul to be on the defense so long as the offensive player manages to touch the court with even one foot before contact. I disagree.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The point of contention is this. Nevada is saying it is impossible for the foul to be on the defense so long as the offensive player manages to touch the court with even one foot before contact. I disagree.

A agree with Nevada. The rule doesn't say where and how the foot/feet need to land, just that they do so. That straddling example above is still a charge. A1's landing spot is where they land, even if it is awkward. Once A1 is on the floor and there has been no contact, stationary B1's position is, by rule, legal.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The point of contention is this. Nevada is saying it is impossible for the foul to be on the defense so long as the offensive player manages to touch the court with even one foot before contact. I disagree.

Just Another Ref:

With all due respect you can disagree all you want but every time you call this a block you will be wrong each and every time. As I stated in my post which you quoted, that for over sixty years the Rules Committees position has been: (a) A player who gains control of the ball must expect to be guarded from the moment he/she gains control of the ball; and (b) A player who does not have control of the ball has a reasonable expectation to not be guarded.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The point of contention is this. Nevada is saying it is impossible for the foul to be on the defense so long as the offensive player manages to touch the court with even one foot before contact. I disagree.

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Try reading my post again.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

According to Nevada, once A1's feet touch the floor, it doesn't matter if B1 got into the spot before A1 went airborne.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the scenario/play or maybe I didn't explain myself well. If B1 obtained his position after A1 is airborne, and airborne A1 crashes into B1, we have a block. If A1 lands first, then crashes into B1, we have a PC foul (possibly).

4-23
ART. 4

Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent *without the ball:

a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.

b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

ART. 5

Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:

a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.

b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.

c. The distance need not be more than two strides.

d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the scenario/play or maybe I didn't explain myself well. If B1 obtained his position after A1 is airborne, and airborne A1 crashes into B1, we have a block. If A1 lands first, then crashes into B1, we have a PC foul (possibly).

4-23
ART. 4

Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent *without the ball:

a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.

b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

This is all in response to Nevadaref's statement that since A1 landed prior to contact, it doesn't matter when B1 gained position with regard to A1 going airborne.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is all in response to Nevadaref's statement that since A1 landed prior to contact, it doesn't matter when B1 gained position with regard to A1 going airborne.

Ok ... my misunderstanding.