Duke/Kansas Block ?

[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.