Video: SE Lousiana v. Pudue-FW

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Interesting. Maybe it's because the officials on Facebook were looking at the feet first to define legal guarding position, and then making the ruling based on whether a legal position was maintained. By rule, the criteria to establish legal guarding position is 2 feet on the floor facing the opponent inbounds. The defender has met these criteria. No matter how ridiculous the play looks, by rule, this play is a charge, unless you were to argue that the defender's torso movement caused him to lose legal guarding position. The only possible fouls I could see on the defender here are either going from A to B (this doesn't happen, the defender's feet are stationary at the time of contact), a foul for violating the vertical cylinder (the torso is behind the feet, and the contact is offense initiated), or lower-body displacement (the walking-under signal), and none of these can be seen in real time, so I will stand by my original ruling.

Sorry, this just isn't a charge. The defender loses LGP by moving forward into contact. He does go from A to B (the body, not the feet). The feet mark the time LGP is obtained, the body marks the position LGP is obtained. And it was trivially easy to see in real time. Just look at the torso, which is what you should be looking at and it jumps out at you. To come up with a block isn't a matter of judgement, it is a misapplication of the rule.

The rule that is applicable:

c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.