NCAA Vid Request - Fri 3/16 - Purdue vs CS Fullerton

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes. You don't lose LGP by entering the RA. You just can't establish it initially within the RA.

Makes sense, I guess it just is not specifically stated from what I could find.

Art. 7. A secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position in the restricted area for the purposes of drawing an offensive foul on a player who is in control of the ball (i.e., dribbling or shooting) or who has released the ball for a pass or try for goal. When illegal contact occurs within this restricted area, such contact shall be called a blocking foul, unless the contact is flagrant. (Exception: When the offensive player leads with a foot or unnatural extended knee or wards off with the arm.) This restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot by:
1) establishing legal guarding position,
2) jumping in the air while maintaining legal verticality position, and
3) attempting to block the shot.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Makes sense, I guess it just is not specifically stated from what I could find.

Art. 7. A secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position in the restricted area for the purposes of drawing an offensive foul on a player who is in control of the ball (i.e., dribbling or shooting) or who has released the ball for a pass or try for goal. When illegal contact occurs within this restricted area, such contact shall be called a blocking foul, unless the contact is flagrant. (Exception: When the offensive player leads with a foot or unnatural extended knee or wards off with the arm.) This restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot by:
1) establishing legal guarding position,
2) jumping in the air while maintaining legal verticality position, and
3) attempting to block the shot.

It's there.

[sdoebler]

While I agree that from reading the entire rule that is how it should be enforced. I don't think the sentence saying that you can not establish initial legal guarding position within the RA to draw a charge is the same as saying, You can establish legal guarding position outside of the RA and then move into the RA for the purpose of drawing a charge.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

While I agree that from reading the entire rule that is how it should be enforced. I don't think the sentence saying that you can not establish initial legal guarding position within the RA to draw a charge is the same as saying, You can establish legal guarding position outside of the RA and then move into the RA for the purpose of drawing a charge.

Yes it does, because the RA rule concerns an INITIAL legal guarding position. If you back into the RA after establishing an initial LGP, you are now MAINTAINING a legal guarding position. It's also been brought up on training videos over the years.

I try to make sure it gets discussed in all my college pre-games.

[bucky]

I am compelled to take this one to the grave.

1) I do not feel he was the secondary defender, rather the primary defender. Also, I feel that he did not meet the definition of a secondary defender as he did not establish LGP for the purpose of drawing a charge.
2) If he was considered to be a secondary defender, then he established LGP outside of the RA.
3) If he did not establish LGP outside of the RA, it could be argued that both feet were off the floor at the time of contact.
4) If he did not establish LGP outside of the RA and at least one foot was on the floor at the time of contact, I feel he met the requirements for the RA exception (which involves the player with the ball stopping his continuous movement(picked up his dribble and came to a jump stop) and initiating illegal contact.)

For those that have responded, I appear to be in the minority and I understand that. Just had to get this off my bird-like chest I do not need any more on it. I was very disappointed in the call. The rule was made for specific reasons/plays and this was not one of them. Had the player continued his motion off one foot, that would have been much more understandable.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

I am compelled to take this one to the grave.

1) I do not feel he was the secondary defender, rather the primary defender. Also, I feel that he did not meet the definition of a secondary defender as he did not establish LGP for the purpose of drawing a charge.
2) If he was considered to be a secondary defender, then he established LGP outside of the RA.
3) If he did not establish LGP outside of the RA, it could be argued that both feet were off the floor at the time of contact.
4) If he did not establish LGP outside of the RA and at least one foot was on the floor at the time of contact, I feel he met the requirements for the RA exception (which involves the player with the ball stopping his continuous movement(picked up his dribble and came to a jump stop) and initiating illegal contact.)

For those that have responded, I appear to be in the minority and I understand that. Just had to get this off my bird-like chest I do not need any more on it. I was very disappointed in the call. The rule was made for specific reasons/plays and this was not one of them. Had the player continued his motion off one foot, that would have been much more understandable.

If you can find the rules reference that says a jump stop is equivalent to no longer making a move to the basket, I would love to see it.

Otherwise, the defender established initial LGP with his left heel on the RA arc, he stayed within the RA, and he stayed grounded.