RA vs leading with an extended leg (Video)

[Nevadaref]

One for the video guys: dunk by Notre Dame player against Georgia Tech at 10:05 of the second half.

Called a block by the Lead due to the defender being in the restricted area. Thought I read some exception on block/charge when a player leads with an extended arm or leg. Anyone have this citation?

[Raymond]

Not on my laptop so I can't cite the rule for you, but yes there are an exception for extended knees and elbows.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

One for the video guys: dunk by Notre Dame player against Georgia Tech at 10:05 of the second half.

Called a block by the Lead due to the defender being in the restricted area. Thought I read some exception on block/charge when a player leads with an extended arm or leg. Anyone have this citation?

4-17-7. also, player in the RA can still try to block a shot. he just cant try to take a charge in the RA.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

4-17-7. also, player in the RA can still try to block a shot. he just cant try to take a charge in the RA.

Knew that I read that, but couldn't discern where. Thanks for the cite.

A secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position in the Restricted Area for the purposes of drawing a player control foul/charge on a player who is in control of the ball (i.e., dribbling or shooting) or who has released the ball for a pass or try for goal. When illegal contact occurs within this Restricted Area, such contact shall be called a blocking foul, unless the contact is flagrant. (Exception: When the offensive player leads with a foot or unnatural extended knee or wards off with the arm.)
This restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot.

[jeschmit]

[Camron Rust]

I don't see anything unnatural about that knee....it was in the same location as any one going up for a layup/dunk.

[MechanicGuy]

I think the rules committee is going to have to address the legality of flying before next season though. It seems like an unfair advantage.

Good call for me, like Camron I don't see anything worth calling from that knee.

[Nevadaref]

As soon as I saw the text, I knew that there would be posters defending the blocking call by taking the position that the knee wasn't "unnatural". This demonstrates the difficulty of writing rules and shows why stating things as simply as possible is best.

The word unnatural needs to be stricken from the rule. It is not part of judging contact with the foot or arm and shouldn't be for the knee either.

What is a natural or unnatural position for a players knee anyway? No one can really say and it doesn't matter. The whole debate misses the point.

The purpose of the NCAA ruling is to protect the players by making it illegal to lead into a defender with an extended foot, knee, or arm, even if the defender is within the restricted area. The NCAA doesn't want that kind of action. It will just cause injuries.

[jeremy341a]

At first I thought he did a pull up on the rim then on replay I realized he was that far up to begin with. I see nothing with the knee.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As soon as I saw the text, I knew that there would be posters defending the blocking call by taking the position that the knee wasn't "unnatural". This demonstrates the difficulty of writing rules and shows why stating things as simply as possible is best.

The word unnatural needs to be stricken from the rule. It is not part of judging contact with the foot or arm and shouldn't be for the knee either.

What is a natural or unnatural position for a players knee anyway? No one can really say and it doesn't matter. The whole debate misses the point.

The purpose of the NCAA ruling is to protect the players by making it illegal to lead into a defender with an extended foot, knee, or arm, even if the defender is within the restricted area. The NCAA doesn't want that kind of action. It will just cause injuries.

I'm not even sure how one can unnaturally lead with a knee. The knee can only do so much.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't see anything unnatural about that knee....it was in the same location as any one going up for a layup/dunk.

Exactly. The movement was not unnatural.

[deecee]

When was the last time a knee naturally landed on your face? Pretty unnatural. What shoes were he wearing?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As soon as I saw the text, I knew that there would be posters defending the blocking call by taking the position that the knee wasn't "unnatural". This demonstrates the difficulty of writing rules and shows why stating things as simply as possible is best.

The word unnatural needs to be stricken from the rule. It is not part of judging contact with the foot or arm and shouldn't be for the knee either.

What is a natural or unnatural position for a players knee anyway? No one can really say and it doesn't matter. The whole debate misses the point.

The purpose of the NCAA ruling is to protect the players by making it illegal to lead into a defender with an extended foot, knee, or arm, even if the defender is within the restricted area. The NCAA doesn't want that kind of action. It will just cause injuries.

Sometimes the defender just needs to get out of the way. This is one of those situations.

[APG]

Here are two examples from an NBA games of an unnatural knee leading to an offensive foul with a defender in the RA