|
Interesting. Maybe it's because the officials on Facebook were looking at the feet first to define legal guarding position, and then making the ruling based on whether a legal position was maintained. By rule, the criteria to establish legal guarding position is 2 feet on the floor facing the opponent inbounds. The defender has met these criteria. No matter how ridiculous the play looks, by rule, this play is a charge, unless you were to argue that the defender's torso movement caused him to lose legal guarding position. The only possible fouls I could see on the defender here are either going from A to B (this doesn't happen, the defender's feet are stationary at the time of contact), a foul for violating the vertical cylinder (the torso is behind the feet, and the contact is offense initiated), or lower-body displacement (the walking-under signal), and none of these can be seen in real time, so I will stand by my original ruling.
|