|
PC Foul called - Lowering the shoulder or not LGP (Video)
<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 |
PC Foul called - Lowering the shoulder or not LGP (Video)
Meh. I don’t love the call. Don’t hate it but don’t love it, either. Didn’t look like the ball handler initiated the contact and it didn’t look like he warded off, either. I’d prefer a call on the defender here. Not the easiest call to make in crowded transition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Who initiated contact is really not relevant. They collided and (usually) one or the other illegal in doing so. The right question is did the defender have LGP or not. The offense can "initiate contact" all day and still get a foul on a defender if the defender doesn't have LGP. If that were not the case, 99% of fast breaks with defenders trying to get back would be charges. |
Quote:
Fair point but do you have an opinion on this play? The title inferred a lowering of the shoulder (which implies a charge and responsibility on the offense regardless of LGP), or a case of LGP being established. I didn’t see either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
I don't think the defender is ever legal. Not a fan of the call.
|
no call. lgp is iffy at best, and d was closing on o at an angle, but offense initiated. a better no call in my book.
|
Quote:
I’m okay with that logic if the defender doesn’t tumble to the floor the way he did here. But with that tumble, the only way I’m no-calling is if the tumble was an obvious flop. Otherwise my instinct says there has to be a whistle on this play. Like an old clinician once said, “If players end up on the floor, know how they got there.” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
I don't have the defender in LGP...block. |
Quote:
Peace |
I’m with JRut... what did the defender do wrong? In many plays we assume that the defender is wrong but why? What we need to do is officiate from the presumption that defenders play legally. ( we officiate the defense) ... we should never penalize good defense but it happens all too often....in this play the defender has done nothing wrong and gets displaced.
I like this call and think it is exactly what needed to be called... |
Correct call. This is not football, where an offensive player can legally stiff-arm or drive a shoulder into a defender to put him on the ground. By the same token, lack of LGP does not give the offensive player license to initiate illegal contact and get away with it scot-free. This is why there is an exception to the restricted area rule for when an offensive player uses an unnatural motion to illegally contact a defender (using a shoulder, forearm, or knee to create separation or knock the defender down). I would apply the same thinking anywhere else on the court, and call the player control foul on blue here.
|
I Have A Note From My Mother ...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did I miss something when I first learned high school rules? I remember talking about legal guarding position, feet, verticality, movement, airborne players, torsos, ducking, etc., but I don't remember discussing lowering shoulders (other than getting head and shoulders past the defender). Was I absent that day? Was it "Senior Skip Day"? |
Quote:
I’m with you Billy but that’s why I said lowering the shoulder (in the context of the OP) implies a charge. I never said it guarantees it, for as you correctly state there is no specific rules coverage for lowering of the shoulder. Looks like as a forum we’re professionally split on who had greater responsibility for the contact and whether LGP requirements were met. It was a close play, so I guess that’s ok. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Colloquial Rule Of Shoulder ...
Quote:
If so, can it be shared with the rest of us, I've never heard about it in my high school games here in my little corner of Connecticut? |
Quote:
Who initiates contact is not important if B doesn't have LGP. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
Should have been a no call.
|
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 |
PC on both. The second is easier.
|
Easy PC foul in second video.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If A1 grabs a rebound and goes full speed the length of the court, with B1 alongside him, but having never obtained LGP, and A1, frustrated with B1's close proximity, shoves him, that is a PC foul on A1, correct? |
Play 1 - ideally a CNC otherwise PC.
Play 2 - PC |
Quote:
Regarding the OP, in my opinion the defender did not have LGP and illegally impeded the ball handler. But for the sake of your question, if we assume that the defender did have LGP and did NOT illegally impede the ball handler, then we have two judgment options: 1) incidental contact, no call, 2) the ball handler illegally contacted the defender (forearm, shoulder, push-off, or whatever you saw), PCF. If given only these two choices, I would opt for incidental contact, as I didn't see anything particularly egregious on the part of the ball handler. |
Quote:
And yes, it can still be a foul on the offense even if the defender is moving and doesn't have LGP....but not a charge. It would have to be a foul for the offense using an arm, for example, to shove the defender away. Body to body is a block/charge and without an extended arm, that is a what this is. In your example, sure, that is a PC for the shove. But if, instead, A1 is trying to alter course to go towards the basket, that defender has to have LGP in order be moving in that manner. The defender doesn't, so it is a block. |
Areas where we have agreement:
- You need LGP to draw a charge while moving or jumping. - The offense can commit a variety of PC fouls that aren't charges. - Offense initiating the contact is not a defining factor in which call we make. Area's where we seem to have trouble reaching agreement: - If and when the defender established/lost LGP. - If we are officiating the defense the what the defender did wrong. - When and which path the defender is/should be guarding. Follow up question: If A1 is driving toward a sideline, and the defensive posture B1 wishes to take is to maintain their torso and feet squared to the path to the rim.Are we saying: a) They would have LGP is the offense was attacking the basket? b) they do not have LGP if the offense is attacking the sideline? c) and now if the offense chooses to change their angle to a diagonal or an attempt to" turn the corner" and angles into the defense, are we saying that contact which occurs must be a block or no call on the defense (exempting a shove or push off of some kind) because we need them to re-established LGP in this new path too? |
Quote:
In the above question, a defender between the dribbler and basket has LGP should the dribbler turn to attack the basket. However, I don't think B1 has LGP if B1 attempts to cut-off A1's path across the court. This is not unlike A1 running directly at the basket and B1 facing A1 from behind.....B1 can't just run a little faster than A1 and cut in front of A1 with B1's back still to A1. |
Well I understand the not having LGP theory. But if the defense is running along side someone not in LGP and the offensive player wards off or makes contact with his arm/hand etc. I have a PCF which is what it looked like in this video.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What I do know from this video is that the calling official had the best look in the house, including better than the camera. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Seems to me LGP was obtained outside the 3-point line at the beginning of the video. |
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. |
In NCAA-M, is a defender with LGP who moves laterally still legal?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
NFHS Rule 4 Quote:
You're not the first to make that mistake. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If not, just about every contact between a shooter and a defender would be a charge since, at SOME point before at SOME location on the court, that defender would have had two feet down and facing the dribbler....it would almost be impossible to not have LGP all the time. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A defender, to obtain LGP, but have his/her chest facing the opponent, with 2 feet down, and be in the path while doing so. After that, the requirement relax. The point was that you simply can't obtain LGP until and unless you're in the "path". Path can have many interpretations, but standing in the corner while a player is driving down the lane isn't one of them. |
Quote:
My interpretation of your description ("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.") will not result in a block 100% of the time. More like 1% of the time, lol. I usually interpret someone "crashing" into someone as a team control foul. If you want last word, then go for it. I am off this topic. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Just my thoughts.....
Play 1.....defender is moving obliquely, not forward, offensive players head and shoulders never get past the defender...PC Play 2....PC |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08am. |