Block, charge, no call travel?
 

A1 goes up for a long pass. Defender comes to stop in front of the offensive player. A1 catches the ball in the air and then lands with both feet and then crashes into B1 who falls backward and then A1 lands on top of him. What is the call?

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

Sounds like the same play that happened in the national championship game.

Close visualization of the play you're talking about:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/vagq4wiSw18" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And the discussion thread: http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...arge-play.html

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

Almost the exact same play. Varsity Partner said it was a block or a travel.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Expectation of being guarded does not address whether or not the attempt at guarding is legally done. Upon further review of the OP, it says A1 lands then crashes into B1. This would indicate that B1 has legal position and is stationary, in which case PC would be the only call.

But I still find it conceivable that B1 could take a position which is not legal in the path of airborne A1 and A1 could contort his body in such a way that one foot might touch the floor before contact.

You are missing the point. The definition of guarding states that a defender does not have to give time and distance to obtain (NFHS)/establish (NCAA/FIBA) a Legal Guarding position against a player is in control of the ball and is not airborne. That means when A1 gains control of the ball while airborne, then returns to the floor just short of B1 and then charges into B1, A1 has committed a PCF. In the play being described that is exactly what happened.

While B1 took a position that was not legal if A1 had made contact with B1 before returning to the court, the instant A1 returned to the court before making contact with B1, B1's position on the court became legal. This is because the definition of the guarding was written from the belief that the player in control of the ball must be expected to be guarded at all times.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Just remember, I am the possum that Gus would argue with, :p.

The only kind of position B1 might have that would still be a block would be one where B1's arms/legs/etc. were extended outside B1's frame, making it a block regardless of how or when A1 lands. If A1 contorts their body such that it permits them to land before contact, that is A1's problem.

Right. While unlikely, it is possible for the airborne player to touch the floor before contact and the call still be a block.

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

B1 takes a position in front of airborne A1, but his left foot is extended significantly in front of his right. A1 lands on his own left foot first followed by his right which lands on the foot of B1 causing both players to fall to the floor.

Can I penalize B1 for this?

If A1 were dribbling up the court and B1 took this same position and the same contact were to occur, would you penalize B1?

I don't see that it's possible to have the same contact on a player dribbling up the court as on an airborne player returning to the floor.

Time And Distance ...
 

Once the airborne player gains possession of the ball and returns to the floor the principles of legal screening go out the door and the principles of legal guarding come onto play, so time and distance also go out the door.