The Official Forum
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   PC Foul called - Lowering the shoulder or not LGP (Video) (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/104407-pc-foul-called-lowering-shoulder-not-lgp-video.html)

Raymond Fri Mar 01, 2019 04:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030602)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/39IqAkL39HI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace
My instincts on this play in real time, on the court, would be to call a PC foul. I don't see anything in the video to make me think that is the wrong call. If someone were to call it a block, I'm not going look at the video and say definitively that they are wrong.

What I do know from this video is that the calling official had the best look in the house, including better than the camera.

Camron Rust Fri Mar 01, 2019 05:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030805)
Yeah, to those that just call a block automatically. This level honestly wants more charges called and if it is a coin flip, I am calling a charge. I think it is a charge anyway because the defender had LGP and took the contact in the chest. I honestly cannot even believe this is a debate.

Peace
IMO, the defender did not have LGP....2 feet down, in the path, facing. He did at one point but lost it for a while and never reobtained it. It is not an obvious result either way. You can't honestly and intelligently say this isn't a debatable point. That IS the whole point of this play.

chapmaja Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030639)
Play #2: Another one
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WkngZrMA8bA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace
I'm biased, since I have family that works at UM, and was born in AA, but this was a PC foul.

griblets Mon Mar 18, 2019 06:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1030811)
IMO, the defender did not have LGP....2 feet down, in the path, facing.
My rule book shows only two requirements: 2 feet touching the court, and guard's torso facing opponent. Nothing about "in the path."

Seems to me LGP was obtained outside the 3-point line at the beginning of the video.

bob jenkins Mon Mar 18, 2019 07:52am
From the NCAA rules book (emphasis added; HS is different):

Section 17. Guarding
Art. 1. Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. The guarding position shall be initially established and then
maintained inbounds on the playing court.

LRZ Mon Mar 18, 2019 08:48am
In NCAA-M, is a defender with LGP who moves laterally still legal?

deecee Mon Mar 18, 2019 09:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1031164)
In NCAA-M, is a defender with LGP who moves laterally still legal?
Yes. The principles are no different. One can, and needs to maintain guarding position otherwise "being set" would be a requirement. Hint: It isn't.

Camron Rust Mon Mar 18, 2019 01:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by griblets (Post 1031160)
My rule book shows only two requirements: 2 feet touching the court, and guard's torso facing opponent. Nothing about "in the path."

Seems to me LGP was obtained outside the 3-point line at the beginning of the video.
You're skipping part of the rule. It is there. If you think about the implications of what you think the rule is you get some really silly results.

NFHS Rule 4
Quote:
NFHS Rule 4, SECTION 23 GUARDING
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
LGP is a special case of the more general "guarding". LGP doesn't replace the requirements of "Guarding", it just adds to it and grants additional rights along with it.

You're not the first to make that mistake.

Rich Mon Mar 18, 2019 01:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1031181)
You're skipping part of the rule. It is there. If you think about the implications of what you think the rule is you get some really silly results.

NFHS Rule 4


LGP is a special case of the more general "guarding". LGP doesn't replace the requirements of "Guarding", it just adds to it and grants additional rights along with it.

You're not the first to make that mistake.


How is LGP maintained and when is it lost?

I see this play as a PC foul all day every day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Pantherdreams Mon Mar 18, 2019 02:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1031184)
How is LGP maintained and when is it lost?

I see this play as a PC foul all day every day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I agree this is a PC or no call depending on your brand. No way is this a block.

I think the argument that LGP is lost and needs to be regained (not how I see it) is that LGP is an extension of guarding, to be guarding you have to be in the path, so they are deeming a some point in the drive the defense is not in the path and no requires to get back to a guarding and LGP position to get the benefit of either.

The question I would have is the ambiguity of path. Defense can be attempting to do different things when guarding (shading, containing, pressuring, funneling, etc to the ball carrier) some defenses are trying to stay between their player and basket others are trying to pressure them to a specfic spot, etc. All of these I would consider guarding. All of them require different positions and cutting off different directions and path(s). The direction the ball handler is going is one path, but the path to basket is a different path, if we want to get into some language issues a path doesn't have to be straight. See what I'm saying. If the player is between the ball carrier and basket, is defending the ball, and meets LGP i'm good.

Rich Mon Mar 18, 2019 02:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams (Post 1031185)
I agree this is a PC or no call depending on your brand. No way is this a block.



I think the argument that LGP is lost and needs to be regained (not how I see it) is that LGP is an extension of guarding, to be guarding you have to be in the path, so they are deeming a some point in the drive the defense is not in the path and no requires to get back to a guarding and LGP position to get the benefit of either.



The question I would have is the ambiguity of path. Defense can be attempting to do different things when guarding (shading, containing, pressuring, funneling, etc to the ball carrier) some defenses are trying to stay between their player and basket others are trying to pressure them to a specfic spot, etc. All of these I would consider guarding. All of them require different positions and cutting off different directions and path(s). The direction the ball handler is going is one path, but the path to basket is a different path, if we want to get into some language issues a path doesn't have to be straight. See what I'm saying. If the player is between the ball carrier and basket, is defending the ball, and meets LGP i'm good.


The book says it ends when head and shoulders are past. I just don't see this as qualifying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Camron Rust Mon Mar 18, 2019 03:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1031186)
The book says it ends when head and shoulders are past. I just don't see this as qualifying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
It also ends when the player is no longer in the path since a player not in the path is not even guarding. This is where I feel the player has lost LGP. As long as we're all applying the proper rules and coming up with a different judgement, we can certainly have different rulings.

rbruno Tue Mar 19, 2019 01:04pm
Well I can see lots of occasions when the defense is along side (not in LGP ) and the offense wards off, pushes off the defender and I have a PC foul. Offense could even bump a defender who is behind him/her and not touching creating contact and getting a PCF.

deecee Tue Mar 19, 2019 01:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1031205)
It also ends when the player is no longer in the path since a player not in the path is not even guarding. This is where I feel the player has lost LGP. As long as we're all applying the proper rules and coming up with a different judgement, we can certainly have different rulings.
So you only apply "in the path" as if the defender is in front of the offensive player that's moving on a straight line? That seems very limiting.

Camron Rust Tue Mar 19, 2019 03:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1031273)
So you only apply "in the path" as if the defender is in front of the offensive player that's moving on a straight line? That seems very limiting.
No. The line the offensive player is moving in is only one of many possible paths. It is also a path the offensive player turns into if the defender is occupying that path and has LGP in it. The defender doesn't get to get 2 feet down in one spot and move into a new "path" and have the prior 2 feet down count.

Example: A1 drives from the top of the key. B4, guarding A4 in the corner is turned torwards A1 and has both feet down. Seeing A1 beat B1, B4 races across the lane while turned sideways (relative to A1). A1 crashes into B4's left side as B4 crosses A1's path.

This is a block 100% of the time because while B4 had 2 feet down and was facing A1 (while B4 was in the corner), I do not know of a single official that considers that LGP.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49pm.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1