Duke/Kansas Block ?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I don't agree, to establish legal guarding position, "The guard’s torso shall face the opponent".

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

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

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.

The basic definition of guarding says otherwise.

The rule....

SECTION 23 GUARDING ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

It then goes on to define what further it takes to obtain and maintain LGP.

Originally Posted by thedewed

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.

Correct....that defender was no longer in the path when the shooter jumped to the side and became airborne. The defender would then have to move to get into the path....and it is too late for that. But that is not the same as saying the defender can't move if the shooter jumps at the defender already in the path.

Originally Posted by thedewed

.....

Most important point here is that a defender doesn't have to be 'in the path' of a dribbler to establish LGP, at all.

Actually, you're 100% wrong on that...see the above rule citation.

Originally Posted by thedewed

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.

The real question is what is the definition of "path".

[VaTerp]

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.

With regard to defensive movement after the offense went airborne, I think your statement here is somewhat contradictory even though I understand and mostly agree with what you are saying.

Its leading to what I hope will be a good discussion that you and Cameron have begun in breaking LGP down further.

With regard to the "balance of calls being in Duke's favor" I'll just note that its very interesting to me as one of my non officiating friends who I often have discussions with about officiating was texting me during the game that basically "refs just have it in them to cheat for Duke" b/c he felt very strongly that the balance of calls was going Duke's way all game. Full disclosure I am a life long Duke "hater" as a fan. And as a Maryland alum, who was on campus watching a notoriously and questionably officiated 2nd half of the 2001 semi-final, I will probably always have some personal feeling about Duke "getting calls." But I really observe the game as an official now so I don't get caught up in that as much as just trying to judge plays. And again, this particularly play, in my mind is a no brainer PC.

That said, its also interesting that some here have basically suggested that Ayers may have taken into consideration that Duke did seem to be getting the balance of the calls in going with a block here on what he saw as a close play. Obviously speculation but if so, then my belief is that he has earned that right. I just disagree that it was close.

Originally Posted by LRZ

.
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 objectives "facts" of what we're seeing.

Not a criticism of anyone, just an observation.

During a state final this year, I was in the arena talking to a recently retired official who I worked my first state final with a few years ago and is still involved as a state observer. I made a comment something to the effect of, "its a lot easier getting all of the calls correct from the stands" and their response was, "I still don't get em right."

Similar to your observation, I came away thinking about how even on replay there can be disagreement amongst good, experienced, and knowledgeable officials. Just shows how difficult it can be to officiate this game especially with athletic, skilled, and physically advanced players moving in a confined space.

[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.

Gotta admit, at the time, I thought Ayers blew the call - but then saw the replay and said "geez, the guy moved a bit to the left...can't do that".

[deecee]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.