High School State Finals (Video)
 

Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xu2R6SefhWw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

The first play I have the defense moving into the shooter.

Second play I dont see advantage by either player and he either gets two or its rebounded. No call there imo.

Thanks for the awesome video.

Defenders did a fabulous of being vertical in both plays. Neither should have been whistled.

Look at the defender and his feet. He is at the Restricted area circle when he jumps and appears to stay at that level when jumped into by the jumper. I think this was a good no call honestly. I thought it was a foul when I first saw it, but the replay changed my mind. But it was close for sure when live.

Peace

Play #2:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AqDBBXD0YoI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

First shot is a good no-call. It looks funny b/c A1's knee contacts B1's leg and causes both of them to go off-balance.

On the 2nd shot, I can understand why the C called a foul, but looking at the replay I think it was just incidental contact.

Karma :D

B11 got away with a foul on the 1st rebounding action. 2nd rebound, I have 2 players jumping for a rebound and B11 losing his balance when he lands.

[QUOTE=JRutledge;1002052]Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xu2R6SefhWw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In the first play it looks like the defender got to the spot first, and then jumped straight up (vertical).

The defender in the second play did not get to the spot of contact first, hence the pushing call.

I suppose there's a little nudge (not intentional), but I'm cool with the no-call/travel.

I agree...on the first. Rut mentioned that he came back down in the same spot. I think that is due to the momentum of the shooter pushing him back, not because he jumped vertically.

On the 2nd, the defender's knee was extended and caught the shooter, pushing him out to a wider line than preferred.

On play #2, I don't have a foul on either. On the first, it didn't displace the player in front...he jumped towards the ball that his teammate mis-rebounded.
On the 2nd, I have two guys going for a ball legally.

Play #3:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4wnw4ZKsIS0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Block, he's still stepping into the shooter as he's going up.

I'm not 100% sure, but I lean towards "blocK". It looks like the defender is moving sideways, but not obliquely, into the path of the shooter upon contact. From the center's angle he may see otherwise, though, so I'm not up in arms over the call.

C is trying to see what the defender is doing through the offensive player's back. He doesn't appear to be able to see if the defense has gotten into position.

Except.....he has two feet down in the path of the offensive player before he's airborne. No time/distance requirement. Big fan of this call, if not the mechanic. :D

The rule says the defender must move sideways or obliquely to maintain LGP. Which, to me, means in such a way as to not be moving towards or into the path of the shooter/dribbler. There is certainly movement by the defender, I'm just not sure it is legal movement.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I'm not talking about maintaining. I'm talking about establishing.

Oh, I never said he didn't establish it. Or I didn't mean to. Just that I'm not sure he maintained it before contact.

http://fronheiser.net/bc.png

I'm happy with the defense on this play. Playing defense is hard and I think too many officials look for a reason to say a defender is illegal.

Edited to add: I do not think the defender is moving in any illegal (read: forward) way at the point of contact.

Moving towards is certainly not allowed, but moving sideways is exactly what is allowed. Until the shooter leaves the floor, the defender has the right to continue sideways movement...what you seem to be calling "into the path". He was already in the path long before that....when they were about 15 feet apart. After that, he was moving to maintain a position in the path, i.e. LGP.

High School State Finals (Video)
 

That was my point.

But as long as gets two feet down in the path prior to contact and prior to the offensive player going airborne, it generally can't be a defensive foul unless the player is moving forward.

Even if he didn't have LGP, he would've established it prior to contact.

Agree.

I concur. This is a textbook charging foul (PC).
Bryan doesn't understand legal defensive movement. The offensive player is not airborne at the time of contact, so the defender is permitted by rule to be moving sideways. Had the offensive player left the floor, the defender would need to stop sliding to his left.

Without doing the freezeframe thing, it looked like the defender took another step sideways (right before contact his left foot moves another few inches to his left) into the shooter. Sideways or lateral movement is allowed provided it's not towards the opponent when contact occurs.

By pausing and going frame by frame (as best I can, at least), it does look like the defender's left foot touches the floor before contact. Therefore, the defender did not move sideways into the shooter. Basically, the defender beat him to the spot.

BTW, I understand LGP and how to maintain it. I'm just not somebody that is going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. It's like in baseball... either the runner is out or the runner is safe. There's no "well, the shortstop made a great stop and throw, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and call the runner out". Doing that is a cop-out. Not that the call is easy to make, but it should come down to how you saw the play, not whether playing defense is hard or not.

By your description, you're not.

Whether his foot touches the floor or not just before contact is completely irrelevant. He had LGP well before that time with both feet down. He does not have to get them both back down before contact.

You keep saying something about moving "into the shooter". That defender was moving towards the endline with every step he took. Unless the shooter got by him, there was no way he was "moving into the shooter". I think you're confusing moving to stay in the shooter's path (legal) with moving into the shooter (not legal).

As Camron Rust and I have told you, you are misapplying the rules on this type of play. Please take a look at Play #4 in this other thread for another example.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...est-video.html

The offensive player is not yet airborne and the defender is definitely moving sideways at the time of contact. This is legal defensive movement.

So you're telling me 4-23-3c, particularly the part about the guard being able to move laterally or obliquely, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs, does not apply?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Just the opposite. I'm telling you that it applies and is exactly what makes the defender's movement in these two plays legal. You are misapplying this rule because you are equating sideways movement to movement towards the shooter. That isn't correct. FORWARD movement by the defender is movement towards the shooter and is illegal at the time of contact. The rule specifically states that lateral (sideways) or oblique (at an angle) movement by the defender is allowed, yet you are penalizing the defender for that. That is where you are mistaken.

Exactly.

For sideways movement to be "into the shooter" the shooter would have to reach a spot on the side of the defender before contact. The contact on such a play would be on the defender's side and not on the front of the defender's torso.

On a play where the offensive player has not jumped, the contact is on the front of the defender's torso, the defender obtained LGP (previously) and is NOT stepping forwards, the defender has a legal position and can not commit a block.

When I see a dribbler trying to go around a guard, and that guard steps sideways into the shooter, I don't see how that is a charge.

That's what I thought I saw here before going frame by frame to see that the guard stepped sideways before contact with the dribbler/shooter occurred.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

It doesn't take frame-by-frame to see that. Where does the contact occur? Offense into the defender's torso or defender's side into the offense's side?

Good point. I was mainly just watching the defender.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

That should make it more obvious, not less. Where on the defender does the contact occur? If the defender is moving is the contact on the part of the defender's body in the direction of movement? If so, block, if not, charge (or no call).

Examples:
Defender moving left, contact on left....block.
Defender moving left, contact on front...charge.
Defender moving forward, contact on front, block.
Defender moving back, contact on front, charge.
Defender moving left & back, contact on left, block.
Defender moving left & back, contact on front, charge.
Defender moving left, contact on right, charge.
etc.

Due to the amount of contact, there may not be a foul, but the above is what foul, if any, you should have based on the direction of movement in combination with the point of impact.

Even if the guard is still stepping sideways at the time of contact, the guard still has LGP, unless the offensive player's head and shoulders have passed the guard.

Even if you DON'T think he had initial LGP (he did), he gets two feet down in the path of an offensive player short of contact and establishes it.

Play #4:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZSGRDot-_MY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

If you can't tell the difference between a dribbler and a shooter, .... ;)

Sorry but I disagree. Too many times I have seen us penalize good defense. Often times we are too easy to find that the defensive player did something wrong. We should be more along the lines of innocent until proven guilty. We need to assume the defensive play is legal until the prove to us they violated the rule. In this play, the defender does a good job beating the player down the floor and getting in front of him. Look we all know where the offensive guy is going the defender got way out in front of him and took the play away. This is a PC Call any day in my book....Philosophically calling this a PC call also reduces rough play. By calling this a Block your telling the offensive players that you will allow that continued play and continue to reward the offense forcing its self in on plays...

I agree.

It seems many officials are looking at the defense and looking for a reason to put a foul on the defender -- in actuality, there are times when we should say "good enough" and send it the other way.

Why should you be giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense?

I thought I was pretty clear that you shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to anyone.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Impossible. It's called doubt for a reason.

JRutlege IMHO he came across the paint and jumped. He didnt come across stop and jump into the air. I say his body isnt straight up knowing where he had been and where he is going when contact happens. The offensive player is knocked down. I dont see many plays where the defense jumps straight up and the offensive player goes to the ground. If they have been letting go that type of moving into a shooter than I am fine. If I see that play I would call a foul every time.

He came across the paint with his feet, then jumped into what appeared to be his vertical space. Now the video angle is not the best, but I see him going straight up. And yes, I see a lot of defenders doing this now, especially in college as it relates to the RA as if they jump, they can be ruled not responsible for the contact that takes place. And I also see many plays where offensive players go into bigger defenders and fall. Those are not always fouls and I am not penalizing defenders for doing good basic things. Now the official in this video pass on that play, I am assuming they felt they were legal.

And if you see that play and call a foul every time, then that is part of why coaches say, "He got hit" and expecting a call just because there was some contact. And in boys basketball, players going into the lane are going to have contact a lot no matter what. We should not penalize good defense when it takes place. Because you have already like the others penalized the defender when he or she might have done everything legal. Now if you tell me you feel this player jumped into the shooter and was outside of the vertical space he earned, that is fine. But I see no evidence of that from the angles we got of that type of movement. And the second vertical play looked very sheepish at best that was actually called. But we have a better angle on the second play.

Peace

You are correct its not the best angle. I just think he didnt have enough time to stop his forward momentum and go straight up and the kidding moving to the lane made him look like he had stopped moving. You guys have taught how important it is to know if the defense was moving forward into the player at the time of contact. I do wish we had a better angle. I dont have a huge problem with the no call. It is just my opinion from my couch.

Again I am not saying unequivocally it is not a foul. I am just saying if it is, we have to use more evidence than "the shooter fell." It might have been a foul and why I also showed the play in the first place. I thought to myself it was a foul and wanted to confirm the play with slow motion. I was not as sure after doing the video.

Peace