When a player on offense has the ball and is driving toward the basket and the defensive player has his back turned to him and the the offensive player runs into the back of the defensive player who should the foul be called on?

When a player on offense has the ball and is driving toward the basket and the defensive player has his back turned to him and the the offensive player runs into the back of the defensive player who should the foul be called on?

 

If the player is still and not moving around, it should be an offensive foul. However, if the player is moving and goes into the path of the offensive player, it is a foul on the defensive one.

Thank you. That's what I thought. In this case the defensive player was standing still, but the foul was called on him.

It's just like hitting a parked car...it doesn't matter if you hit it in the front or the back, it's your fault.

It's just like hitting a parked car...it doesn't matter if you hit it in the front or the back, it's your fault.

 

Great analogy. I agree that you should no penalize the defensive player if he is still. Hw is entitled to his position on the floor.

My question is, "Why does the defensive player not have one eye on the ball?"

My question is, "Why does the defensive player not have one eye on the ball?"

 

:laugh: Unless your a lizard, keeping one eye on the ball is really hard!

Rule 4-23-1 (page 31 of the 2009-10 Rule Book) states that every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without legally contacting an opponent.

 

Rule 4-23-2 states to obtain a initial legal guarding postition:

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

b) the front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent

 

Rule 4-23-3 states that after obtaining initial guarding position

b) the guard is not required to continue facing the opponent

 

In the official's opinion the defender must not have had initial legal guarding position.

 

P.S. There is nothing in the case book defining this particular situation.

Rule 4-23-1 (page 31 of the 2009-10 Rule Book) states that every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without legally contacting an opponent.

 

Rule 4-23-2 states to obtain a initial legal guarding postition:

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

b) the front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent

 

Rule 4-23-3 states that after obtaining initial guarding position

b) the guard is not required to continue facing the opponent

 

In the official's opinion the defender must not have had initial legal guarding position.

 

P.S. There is nothing in the case book defining this particular situation.

 

I don't think LGP is an issue here. The rulebook clearly states that a dribbler can not run through an opponent and also says that the contact is caused by the defender once the dribbler gets his shoulders past the defender. Since the second part is not an issue its clear that its a foul assuming the defender didn't intentionally or unintentionally slide over into this path first.

I don't think LGP is an issue here. The rulebook clearly states that a dribbler can not run through an opponent and also says that the contact is caused by the defender once the dribbler gets his shoulders past the defender. Since the second part is not an issue its clear that its a foul assuming the defender didn't intentionally or unintentionally slide over into this path first.

 

I agree. You cannot fault a defender who, in this scenario, may not even know that the opponant is cominng at him. The original question posed said that the defender was just standing there...

10-6-7 A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and the boundary unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him/her to go through without contact.

 

4-7-2 a. A player who is moving with the ball is required to stop or change direction to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained a legal guarding position in his/her path.

 

Again, official interpretion of the rules...

Edited December 11, 200916 yr by CCHS_Dad
typo

10-6-7 A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and the boundary unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him/her to go through without contact.

 

4-7-2 a. A player who is moving with the ball is required to stop or change direction to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained a legal guarding position in his/her path.

 

Again, official interpretion of the rules...

 

The foul in this situation would be as a result of the first cited rule.

Not sure why there was even a question on this one. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

I could see why an official might call it on the defense because of the rule interpretations above, however, if an offensive player with the ball clearly runs over a defensive player with his back to him (and the defensive guy does not move) it has to be an offensive foul based off those same rules above.

Edited December 11, 200916 yr by bioteacher
grammar error