Duke/Kansas Block ?

[deecee]

I personally go block on any 50/50 calls (tie goes to the offense).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

The whole "defender moved slightly to his left" statement may seem like a hair split, but B/C plays in the air have to be handled differently than ones that happen along the floor.

John Adams himself released that "quiz" a number of years ago that showed officials getting all kinds of B/C calls wrong, and the big takeaway seemed to be that with plays on the floor, the only thing that matters is who initiates the contact - does the dribbler go into the defender, or does the defender go into the dribbler. With plays in the air, the defender gets ZERO latitude - he has to be at the spot before the shooter becomes airborne, and cannot move AT ALL except turning in place to absorb contact.

Then you need to watch it again. That is not the big takeaway. The big takeaway was did the defender get in front of the shooter before the shooter jumps. If the defender wasn't absolutely still, they still get the charge if they made it into the path first.

Regardless of the wording in that quiz, the plays where he talks about the defender moving making it a block ALL have the defender moving INTO the shooter.

[thedewed]

[QUOTE=JRutledge;1020108]You can disagree, but you quoted the rule as only one of the things to establish LGP.

I did not read anything else after this statement because it is irrelevant.

Peace[/QUOTE

Whatever the semantics, I don't agree at all that if you have legal guarding position and a flyer takes off at an angle to the path he was on, you can then slide to the new path and take a charge. That's simply not right. And as seen in A.R 239, there is a distinction between 'guarding' and 'guarding conform(ing) to legal guarding principles'.

I only quoted the 'facing the opponent' language because that was all that was in the initial LGP wording that was relevant to the discussion. This isn't rocket science.

Again, think of a point guard moving east/west covered by someone that is to his north towards the rim, but guarding him at a 90 degree angle to his path because his primary concern is staying between the dribbler and the basket. Are you taking the position that that isn't LGP? Of course it is. "guarding' in the rule book says nothing about whether that guarded player has the ball as well.

Unfortunately, these rule books aren't written by attorneys, they are written by basketball guys, so there is inconsistent wording from time to time. Yes , 'guarding' says in the path, but initial LGP says nothing about that, and that is the key language for defining 'legally' guarding

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Whatever the semantics, I don't agree at all that if you have legal guarding position and a flyer takes off at an angle to the path he was on, you can then slide to the new path and take a charge. That's simply not right. And as seen in A.R 239, there is a distinction between 'guarding' and 'guarding conform(ing) to legal guarding principles'.

I only quoted the 'facing the opponent' language because that was all that was in the initial LGP wording that was relevant to the discussion. This isn't rocket science.

You're trying to make your case with an entirely different play. Stick to the situation being discussed.

Again, we are NOT talking about a shooter jumping in some direction where the defender is not but subsequently slides into the new path after the shooter jumps. That would be a block all day.

We ARE talking about a situation where the shooter jumps at the defender and would hit the defender (perhaps left of center) but the defender moves over a few inches and the shooter hits the defender anyway (perhaps right of center). That can be a charge even though the defender moved. It is about being in the path before the jump, not being absolutely stationary before the jump.

Originally Posted by thedewed

Again, think of a point guard moving east/west covered by someone that is to his north towards the rim, but guarding him at a 90 degree angle to his path because his primary concern is staying between the dribbler and the basket. Are you taking the position that that isn't LGP? Of course it is. "guarding' in the rule book says nothing about whether that guarded player has the ball as well.

Unfortunately, these rule books aren't written by attorneys, they are written by basketball guys, so there is inconsistent wording from time to time. Yes , 'guarding' says in the path, but initial LGP says nothing about that, and that is the key language for defining 'legally' guarding

You do realize that legal GUARDING position is a form of guarding, right?? As such, it must also meet the definitions of guarding. That is apparent when you consider that LGP is a sub bullet under GUARDING. LGP is a special case of guarding that allows extra privileges that guarding alone does not.

And again, what exactly is in the path? I'd argue that staying between the dribbler and the basket is one definition of path since that is where they dribbler would like to go even if the dribbler isn't, at that moment, moving in that direction....along with being in their direction of travel.

If we were to strictly take your definition of path, all it would take for a dribbler to negate LGP of a defender would be to take one step in any direction not towards the defender then drive into the defender.

If we were to take your definition of path, it would be impossible to obtain LGP on a stationary opponent...and that would be a silly conclusion.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

We ARE talking about a situation where the shooter jumps at the defender and would hit the defender (perhaps left of center) but the defender moves over a few inches and the shooter hits the defender anyway (perhaps right of center). That can be a charge even though the defender moved. It is about being in the path before the jump, not being absolutely stationary before the jump.

Very well said, and to further state what should be obvious, the contact does not have to be in the center of the defender's chest to have a charge.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then you need to watch it again. That is not the big takeaway. The big takeaway was did the defender get in front of the shooter before the shooter jumps. If the defender wasn't absolutely still, they still get the charge if they made it into the path first.

Regardless of the wording in that quiz, the plays where he talks about the defender moving making it a block ALL have the defender moving INTO the shooter.

I think you misunderstood what my comment was and/or are in error on what Adams’ remarks accompanying that quiz were.

[BillyMac]

All of this talk about legal guarding position got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

Before a sideline throwin by A1, B5 fronts post player A5 near the elbow. B5 is facing the basket. A1 inbounds to A2 who immediately dribbles toward the basket and runs into B5, hitting B5 square in the back, causing B5 to fall onto the court. B5 has not moved an inch since before the throwin.

Since B5 never had legal guarding position (never faced A2), is this never a player control foul on A2, and always a blocking foul on B5?

Or not, because B5 was never guarding A2, but was guarding A5?

(Note: I'm trying to scrutinize the definitions of guarding, and legal guarding position.)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

All of this talk about legal guarding position got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

Before a sideline throwin by A1, B5 fronts post player A5 near the elbow. B5 is facing the basket. A1 inbounds to A2 who immediately dribbles toward the basket and runs into B5, hitting B5 square in the back, causing B5 to fall onto the court. B5 has not moved an inch since before the throwin.

Since B5 never had legal guarding position (never faced A2), is this never a player control foul on A2, and always a blocking foul on B5?

Or not, because B5 was never guarding A2, but was guarding A5?

(Note: I'm trying to scrutinize the definitions of guarding, and legal guarding position.)

This is not a LGP situation. Read the part about each player being entitled to a spot on the court as long as it was achieved legally............or something to that effect.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not a LGP situation ...

... because B5 is not guarding A2?

Also: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the
player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

All of this talk about legal guarding position got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

Before a sideline throwin by A1, B5 fronts post player A5 near the elbow. B5 is facing the basket. A1 inbounds to A2 who immediately dribbles toward the basket and runs into B5, hitting B5 square in the back, causing B5 to fall onto the court. B5 has not moved an inch since before the throwin.

Since B5 never had legal guarding position (never faced A2), is this never a player control foul on A2, and always a blocking foul on B5?

Or not, because B5 was never guarding A2, but was guarding A5?

(Note: I'm trying to scrutinize the definitions of guarding, and legal guarding position.)

B5 was "guarding"...which only requires that B5 be in the path of the opponent. However, B5 did not have LGP. Without LGP, B5 does not have the liberty to be moving (even laterally) if there is contact and B5 doesn't have the liberty of jumping. If B5 remains planted, it will be a charge. If B5 does any of the things that LGP allows, then B5 has blocked.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

B5 was "guarding"...which only requires that B5 be in the path of the opponent.

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard
and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is
entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first
without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder,
hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position
if contact occurs.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

B5 was "guarding"...which only requires that B5 be in the path of the opponent. However, B5 did not have LGP. Without LGP, B5 does not have the liberty to be moving (even laterally) if there is contact and B5 doesn't have the liberty of jumping. If B5 remains planted, it will be a charge. If B5 does any of the things that LGP allows, then B5 has blocked.

Thanks Camron Rust. Nice explanation.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by deecee

I personally go block on any 50/50 calls (tie goes to the offense).

I'm the exact opposite. I don't want to entice the offense to keep barreling into collisions.