PC Foul called - Lowering the shoulder or not LGP (Video)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by griblets

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

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.