Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
1) I hate to break this to you, but there is no rules requirement that the defender's feet must be set while guarding. There is a requirement needed to establish LGP, but that's not what you're talking about. I realize that you don't own a rulebook, so I'll cite the applicable rule for you:
NFHS Rule 4-23-3--After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
|
Ahhh..., hold the phone. Good try gentlemen but you're going to have to do better than that. I wasn't born yesterday. We all get the propaganda but how about let's cut the crap and get to the real issue here. JR, I don't know what you're smoking but I do know you drank too much of that kool-aid,
but the requirement to established LGP is exactly the point here and what we are talking about here. At what point did he establish LGP as opposed to what point the offensive player was legality in the act of shooting. Once the offenisive player foot is off the floor, he is now in the act of shooting and it is too late for the defensive player to established LGP. All this other stuff that you included is garbage, what we call on the street, bullcorn, but better stated in academics as propaganda (info designed to throw you off track to what the real issue is.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
e)The guard may turn or duck to to absorb the shock of imminent contact. Does that sound like the defender has to be set
|
Then why is the 2nd video a block or no-call?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
NFHS Rule 4-23-4--Guarding an opponent WITH the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball: (a) NO time or distance is required to take a legal position."
"Time and distance" are only relevant, rules-wise, when you're guarding an opponent WITHOUT the ball. That's NFHS rule 4-23-5. Nobody has been talking about it here because it just isn't relevant in any freaking way to the play being discussed.
|
Well, maybe it's not relevent but across the board using this forum as a guide, we all agree that the 2nd video is a no-call or a block. However, we are split on the first video and it's because we are divided on whether the defender obtained LGP b/4 the shooter was in the act of shooting. The only way this can be determined is to look at the offensive players foot at the precise time that the defender feet where set. This is impossible to judge in this one scenario. This is why we are split. This is why I believe we need to send this video to Fed. to hopefully get a better definition on how we should rule on this play. Having to go to the monitor afterwards to determine if we got it right, means, Houston (NFHS) we got a problem!
Another quick thing, NBA officials will nail this call and be consistent across the board, it's a block. Whether you agree with the NBA officials ruling is irrevelent here because the point is they all in agreement with what the association wants called here, and it's across the board. Not so in NFHS.
Unfortunately JR, your approach to this issue is to throw officials under the bus. It's a personal thing with you. It's all about you, but I fooled you. Just like the commerical, you thought it was all about me. But the truth is? It's about the team! It's about the game! For me, it's about getting everyone on the same page with calling this play. You really don't have what it takes to debate this issue with me any further. You should really shut up and go back to hating on new officials who come here and ask questions to try and learn. That's what I think you do the best. Trying to debate advanced topics with senior officials and turning the debate into me versus you is childish and the very reason why we can't get anything changed in the Fed. when it comes to issues like this that we disagree on.
This is a great video, a great topic to debate. I also want to thank the OP for posting it out here. Let's not ruin it.