Basketball rule of the week 12/3

I started doing this with football and with basketball in swing thought it would be good for all of to really look at the rules. I figure I would start this with the definitions for legal guarding position as this is the foundational basis for block/charge calls.

4-23-2 and 4-23-3

ART. 2 ... To obtain an initial legal guarding position:

a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.

b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

ART. 3 ... After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:

a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.

b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.

c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.

e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

Also a point of emphasis call this year is you can’t take a charge with a foot out of bounds.

Also a point of emphasis call this year is you can’t take a charge with a foot out of bounds.

What does a point of emphasis mean? This has always been the rule.

What does a point of emphasis mean? This has always been the rule.

They stress it to officials in the books and materials put out for the year. It’s usually a rule that hasn’t been called like it should and by reemphasizing it for the year you help it stand out more in the officials mind and that impact will usually carry over for years.

Curious about the logic as to why the rule requires a player to have both feet in bounds?

Curious about the logic as to why the rule requires a player to have both feet in bounds?

I believe it's because they say since foot is out of bounds, they are not legally in play.

Something of that nature. It makes sense.

I started doing this with football and with basketball in swing thought it would be good for all of to really look at the rules. I figure I would start this with the definitions for legal guarding position as this is the foundational basis for block/charge calls.

 

4-23-2 and 4-23-3

 

ART. 2 ... To obtain an initial legal guarding position:

 

a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.

 

b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

 

ART. 3 ... After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:

 

a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.

 

b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.

 

c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

 

d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.

 

e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

You rarely see a defender get a charging call when they have established legal guarding position and they jump straight up while the offense runs directly into them.

You rarely see a defender get a charging call when they have established legal guarding position and they jump straight up while the offense runs directly into them.

Definitely not, but I believe it’s how most officials justify no calls with contact in and around the basket so the shooting teams coach can’t gripe too much.

Part of why I’m doing this too is so if an official does call it maybe some educated can stop the lynch mob that would ensue.

Article 3.c leads me to believe that as long as a defender isn’t sliding under an airborne shooter, some foot-shuffling or even leaning away from the offensive player does not constitute a blocking call as it seems to have in the past.

Would that be an accurate interpretation?

Article 3.c leads me to believe that as long as a defender isn’t sliding under an airborne shooter, some foot-shuffling or even leaning away from the offensive player does not constitute a blocking call as it seems to have in the past.

 

Would that be an accurate interpretation?

So long as he has established legal guarding position first.

This is really helpful information.

Turning/ducking generally results in a foul call - the more common practice seems to be "covering up," which probably should be spelled out more clearly in the rules as every time I see it, it strikes me as difficult to guard someone with both of your hands covering your crotch.

This is really helpful information.

 

Turning/ducking generally results in a foul call - the more common practice seems to be "covering up," which probably should be spelled out more clearly in the rules as every time I see it, it strikes me as difficult to guard someone with both of your hands covering your crotch.

I agree and 4-23-3(e) allows for the movements you are speaking of, but often times guard's aren't getting the benefit of it.