Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmaellis
1) I never said anything about the heel needing to be down before the foot is set.
2) But, since you mentioned it, I haven't seen anything in the rules that talk about the foot needing to be "set" before LGP is established. What does that mean? How does the foot become "set." (I have been looking at 4:23:1-5).
3)So, given that the definition of the "foot", two of which are "feet", is the sum of all the the different parts at the end of the leg, it would therefore mean that, yes, the rule does state that the heel must be down, as must the toe also be down, before LGP can be established.
|
1) Oh? Then who was the jmaellis that stated the following back at 6:05pm?---
In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor, you can see the Southridge player left foot is not completely SET on the floor, it looks like his heel was still up." If you go back and review the posts, you're the only that's been talking about a foot being
set. I pointed out that both feet just have to be
touching the court.
2) That's exactly what I was asking you. What has whether a heel is off the floor or not got to do with anything? NFHS rule 4-23-2(a), which is the applicable rule for the block/charge being discussed simply states that to attain LGP, the guard must have both feet
touching the playing court. There nothing anywhere stating that the foot must be flat on the court, and there never has been.
3) And this statement of your's is exactly why I was asking the questions. It is wrong. You don't understand the concept and you're making up your own interpretation. There is
NO rule requiring that the heel has to touch the court before a defender can attain LGP. The rule says that the
foot merely has to
touch the court.
Don't take any of that personally either.