[Wally Crocker]

Situation:
Player A from team 1 is actively guarding Player Y from team 2. Player B from team 1 poaches to also guard Player Y and in doing so gets in the way of Player A, who calls pick.

Is this a valid pick? I can’t see anything in the rules to say otherwise.

If it is a valid pick, it doesn’t seem like it should be the case that if two players are actively guarding someone, and one of them gets in the way of the other, that one of them can call pick.

An extreme example to demonstrate why it doesn’t make sense:
Two players are marking the same player, one is behind the other. The defender in front is slower and hampers the movement of the second, who calls pick.

So:
1. Is it a legal pick if one guarder is picked by another guarder of the same player?
2. If it is a valid pick, could we add a clause to make it an illegal pick call in this situation?

[Rueben Berg]

1. Is it a legal pick if one guarder is picked by another guarder of the same player?

Yes.

2. If it is a valid pick, could we add a clause to make it an illegal pick call in this situation?

We will add it to the list of things to look into.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

[quote=”wally” post=169]Situation:
If it is a valid pick, it doesn’t seem like it should be the case that if two players are actively guarding someone, and one of them gets in the way of the other, that one of them can call pick.
[/quote]

Why not? Extreme examples aside what are you trying to avoid?

[Wally Crocker]

[quote=”Einstein” post=176][quote=”wally” post=169]Situation:
If it is a valid pick, it doesn’t seem like it should be the case that if two players are actively guarding someone, and one of them gets in the way of the other, that one of them can call pick.
[/quote]

Why not? Extreme examples aside what are you trying to avoid?[/quote]

Because I believe the intention of the pick rule is to not disadvantage the defender if the offence causes them to run into someone. That’s not stated specifically in the rules, but a pick is generally caused by the offence. Either the cutter going too close to other players, or another cutter running into or bringing a defender into another defenders space. Even if it’s one defender running into another defender, it usually caused by the offence.

In the case of more than one defender marking the same player, it is the defender causing the pick. The defence should not be given a reprieve for a violation they have themselves intentionally caused.

An extreme example:
Seven defenders are marking the same player. They are necessarily in a bit of a clump and they keep getting in each other’s way. Pick is called 122 times in the next three minutes.

You can pare this example down. With each less defender you have less chance of a pick, but the principle remains the same with two players. Thus it is the defenders decisions and actions causing the pick. My use of the word “intentional” above is in reference to the fact that they intentionally take action which may cause a pick.

[Anonymous]

Okay so here are my responses to the above explanation:

First:

[quote=”wally” post=177]
In the case of more than one defender marking the same player, it is the defender causing the pick.
[/quote]
This statement is not always true, it should be obvious that even while double / triple teaming a player it is possible for a pick to occur mainly as a result of the offence player’s movement. This would be particularly relevant in a zone defense. Or to put it another way, just because you were double teaming does not make it your fault that you were picked.

Second:

[quote=”wally” post=177]
The defense should not be given a reprieve for a violation they have themselves intentionally caused.
[/quote]
Even if a defender deliberately takes a position where a pick is more likely to occur, this does not mean that they caused the pick, nor does it mean that they were malicious in the choice of position. Forget double teaming for a minute, imagine marking an offence player in the middle of a a stack, your team is forcing towards a chosen sideline, you choose to stand 1 or 2 meters away from your mark, on the open side. Because the stack is closely spaced if the person you are marking cuts to the break side it is more likely that you will be picked because you choose not to stand right beside them, should we say that this is not a pick?

Finally in short, I’m unconvinced that there is a situation beyond the extreme examples provided, where this amendment would be appropriate, but it certainty would have the added effect of disadvantaging players in a legitimate defensive structure.

[Josh Broughton]

[quote=”Einstein” post=184]Okay so here are my responses to the above explanation:

This statement is not always true, it should be obvious that even while double / triple teaming a player it is possible for a pick to occur mainly as a result of the offence player’s movement. This would be particularly relevant in a zone defense.
[/quote]

Can you please outline some scenarios where this would be the case?

I’m with OP, picks should only be able to be called when an active marker is picked by someone not marking the same player.

[Anonymous]

JB and Wally,

Apologies for the lateness of this reply. Below is a rather long-winded example of where the suggested change would present disadvantage for a team using what I would consider to be a legitimate defensive structure. Before the conversation gets into a series of contradicting examples however I’d like to repeat some of my more general worries regarding the suggestion and your reasons for it.

[quote=”wally” post=177]
In the case of more than one defender marking the same player, it is the defender causing the pick.
[/quote]
There is never just one reason for a pick to occur. Even if a double team contributed to the occurrence of a pick this change would mistakenly (IMO) elevate it over all other contributing factors in all situations.

[quote=”wally” post=177]
The defense should not be given a reprieve for a violation they have themselves intentionally caused.
[/quote]
It is a big jump to assume that a a team which double marks a player did so to intentionally cause picks.

Lastly I’d like you guys to consider the implications of such a change as it relates to

12.8. Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by any opposing player, provided that they do not initiate contact in taking such a position.

I know this suggestion would not change a players entitlement to take any position, but it would mean that their position at one point in the game changes what calls they are entitled to make later.

Example: Typical 3-3-1 zone D (3-man cup, 2 wings, 1 mid, 1 deep) versus a typical 3-4 O.
The cup and the mid are following a swing pass from the middle towards the left sideline there is a receiver cutting under from deep to receive a continuation pass, they start near left the sideline and are cutting slightly towards the middle of the pitch. Seeing this as the primary threat the left wing moves to follow the cuter while the mid moves to block a pass through the cup they are both covering the same player but the wing is following the cutter left-to-right and the mid is following the cup right-to-left. As the cutter comes close to the cup both players are closely covering him/her and there is no option for the thrower. Spotting this the cutter clears sharply towards the opposite sideline, the wing attempts to follow, while the mid remains to block any passes through the cup to another cut or a dump. The wing is prevented from following the cut because he is picked due to both the position of the mid and the path of the cutter.

Okay, that’s a lot to try and convey in a single post, I hope that it is easy to understand. Let me say that I certainty see where you are coming from and I think that picks in this situation are frustrating. I just think that this kind of change makes too many assumptions and generalizations to be usefull.