Duke/Kansas Block ?

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

In addition to a bunch of texts I received from friends about this call my mother, who doesn't even watch much basketball, called me to ask me what I thought about the call since she and my father disagreed. I ended up explaining LGP to my dad since his reasoning was the defender wasnt "completely set."

Watching live and on every replay I've seen since, this was an EASY PC IMO. We talk sometimes in pre-games about not making defenders "be perfect." This was a good example of that. This play is a PC 10 times out of 10 in my book and not particularly close at all.

this talk about establishing LGP and then moving, any movement he made after establishing LGP was with Newman in the air, so illegal. My issue is we are talking an inch or 2. I think it was a charge, and in any event there was more wrong calls in the game on balance in Duke's favor anyway, so it sure didn't cost Duke the game.

[LRZ]

"any movement he made after establishing LGP was with Newman in the air...."

I had the lateral movement before Newman became airborne.

I'm fascinated by the fact that, in this forum generally, we view plays multiple times, in slow motion, forwards and backwards--and we can't even agree on the objective "facts" of what we're seeing.

Not a criticism of anyone, just an observation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

this talk about establishing LGP and then moving, any movement he made after establishing LGP was with Newman in the air, so illegal. My issue is we are talking an inch or 2. I think it was a charge, and in any event there was more wrong calls in the game on balance in Duke's favor anyway, so it sure didn't cost Duke the game.

Are you sure about that? Show me the rule that says that.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you sure about that? Show me the rule that says that.

Common sense if not literal.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Common sense if not literal.

wow

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by just another ref

wow

Are you guys saying that if you establish legal guarding position, the driver jumps in the air, you can then slide underneath him? Good luck with that. You all are just playin' lol. There is no question anywhere on this one. You two just aren't thinking it through. If moving laterally while the driver is in the air to stay in front of him after he jumps is legal, then a lot of slides underneath a player become charges. So why the wow?

Any opinions on the blocked shot by DeSouza in the 2nd half? Looks like he got it as it got to the board, no bounce off it. I'd say on that call, it's not goal tending if the issue is the backboard, unless you see it come off the board and then touched. Tie goes to the blocker in other words.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Are you guys saying that if you establish legal guarding position, the driver jumps in the air, you can then slide underneath him? Good luck with that. You all are just playin' lol. There is no question anywhere on this one. You two just aren't thinking it through. If moving laterally while the driver is in the air to stay in front of him after he jumps is legal, then a lot of slides underneath a player become charges. So why the wow?

No. That is not what we're saying. No one is saying the player moving laterally is doing so to "stay" in front of the opponent.

A player that "is" in front of the opponent who moves laterally doesn't lose LGP. The requirement is that the defender be in the path before the shooter leaves the floor. If you were to freeze the defender at that moment (when the shooter leaves the floor) and they are "in the path", then a subsequent lateral shift is irrelevant. They already met the requirements of LGP.

If at that frozen moment, the defender is NOT in the path of the shooter, then lateral movement to put them in the path mean they didn't have LGP when the shooter jumped.

The rule just does not require the defender to be set in stone before the shooter jumps. That type of thinking is what causes many officials to get block/charge plays wrong.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rule just does not require the defender to be set in stone before the shooter jumps. That type of thinking is what causes many officials to get block/charge plays wrong.

NFHS: A defender may turn away, or duck, to absorb contact, provided the defender has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court, and facing the opponent.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. That is not what we're saying. No one is saying the player moving laterally is doing so to "stay" in front of the opponent.

A player that "is" in front of the opponent who moves laterally doesn't lose LGP. The requirement is that the defender be in the path before the shooter leaves the floor. If you were to freeze the defender at that moment (when the shooter leaves the floor) and they are "in the path", then a subsequent lateral shift is irrelevant. They already met the requirements of LGP.

If at that frozen moment, the defender is NOT in the path of the shooter, then lateral movement to put them in the path mean they didn't have LGP when the shooter jumped.

The rule just does not require the defender to be set in stone before the shooter jumps. That type of thinking is what causes many officials to get block/charge plays wrong.

I don't agree, to establish legal guarding position, "The guard’s torso shall face the opponent". Here is an example for you, would you say that a defender running along at the side of a dribbler in transition has 'legal guarding position'? I think he does...if the dribbler changes his path and moves into the defenders path, initiating the collision, it's a charge, despite the fact that the defender was not 'in the path' of the dribbler when establishing legal guarding position. Nowhere does the book say that a defender has to be 'in the path' of a moving dribbler to have legal guarding position, he must be 'facing' him, which is different. I understand the ability to maintain LGP by moving obliquely with the dribbler.

Another example more to your description, let's say a high flyer is coming straight at a guy set up for a charge in the paint, has clearly established LGP. Let's say springy on his last plant and jump changes direction to fly at a 20 degree angle to avoid the LGP. The defender cannot then move underneath the flyer while he is in the air and take a charge. I agree that this is an area that is misapplied quite a bit. An example of a guy that was in legal guarding position was Svi on Trent late in this game, Svi alongside moving with him, and Trent on his shot changing direction into Svi, 100% responsible for the collision, got an and 1. That should have been nothing or a charge.

Most important point here is that a defender doesn't have to be 'in the path' of a dribbler to establish LGP, at all. If you think about that, it's obvious. Consider a defender out top defending the point who is dribbling side to side, and defender is staying between him and the bucket, in LGP, but not 'in the path' of the dribbler. If the dribbler then changed direction and moved into the obliquely moving defender, it's on the dribbler.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Common sense if not literal.

Common sense would result in the opposite conclusion that you have made.