Fun With And One …

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Proper blocking foul....defender never had LGP...only moved into the path after the shooter was airborne.

She got in front of her and had LGP initially, she did not maintain it after the player went airborne and was going to fly by her.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

She got in front of her and had LGP initially, she did not maintain it after the player went airborne and was going to fly by her.

Peace

I suppose you could argue that as the offensive maybe was heading for her at one brief moment but I don't think she was ever in the opponents path with 2-feet down and facing. She had 2 of the 3 requirements, but not all of them at once.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I suppose you could argue that as the offensive maybe was heading for her at one brief moment but I don't think she was ever in the opponents path with 2-feet down and facing. She had 2 of the 3 requirements, but not all of them at once.

The rule does not say you must be in their "path" to establish LGP. And if you say she was not in her path, then explain to me how you are in front of someone and not in their path?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule does not say you must be in their "path" to establish LGP.

Probably just a matter of semantics, but assuming that to obtain an initial legal guarding position one probably has to be guarding:

4-23: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Probably just a matter of semantics, but assuming that to obtain an initial legal guarding position one probably has to be guarding:

4-23: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Exactly, and several other plays support that point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Probably just a matter of semantics, but assuming that to obtain an initial legal guarding position one probably has to be guarding:

4-23: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Where does it say that "path" has to be a specific line? If they went in another direction the player is in front of them. Until I see something that suggests a path is linear, then I do not see how this is not in the path. They were not on the other side of the lane.

PEace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where does it say that "path" has to be a specific line? If they went in another direction the player is in front of them. Until I see something that suggests a path is linear, then I do not see how this is not in the path. They were not on the other side of the lane.

PEace

For an airborne player, is a defender to the side in their path? If so, that means that when they move over to where they will be hit, they'd be legal since they'd already be in the "path".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where does it say that "path" has to be a specific line?

Maybe a valid point already addressed by Camron Rust, but now you're moving the goal posts. You're original statement was simply: "The rule does not say you must be in their "path" to establish LGP". That statement was 100% incorrect. Admit that and we can then move on to address your concerns regarding the definition of "path", a generic definition (there is no NFHS definition) that I was also thinking about, with no conclusion. Words matter. Your words matter. Don't change comments on the run. Don't move the goal posts. Doing so detracts from some valid points that you may have, points worth giving some attention to. You have not as yet admitted that the rule does say you must be in their path to establish LGP. State that and we can move on to explore the rest of your possibly valid concerns. You can do both (wrong and concerns) in the same single post. Or do you still believe that the rule does not say you must be in their path to establish LGP? We never got any closure from you on that aspect of this discussion.

[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...uOQbJ3Gw%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a blocking foul.

When guarding an opponent with the ball, If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained a legal position before the opponent left the floor. (4-23-4b) In this play, the defender, White #2, moved laterally into the path of Blue #12 after she became airborne to attempt the try. This is a blocking foul and an excellent ruling by the Center official.

The Center official does a very nice job of making a position adjustment in transition to find a way to view this play. There wasn't a great angle available to her, but she could get a good enough view to correctly rule on the play. The Lead official (not pictured until after the ruling was made) most likely had the best chance to get an open look to see between both the offensive and defensive players. When the Lead did not have a ruling, the Center came in and made the proper ruling.

However, the Center did not execute proper site of foul signaling. She does display the proper stop-the-clock signal and the counting goal signal. The counted goal signal was a bit emphatic. Officials should not get caught up in the emotion of a game and should signal in a manner which is calm, unhurried, and under control. (IAABO Manual p. 131) Officials should also step toward the offender, stop and verbalize the color and number of the player who committed the foul. (Manual p. 180 Section 7) The Center did not demonstrate the proper blocking signal (Manual p. 239), instead pounded her hips with clenched fists. When free throws are to be awarded as they were in this play, the ruling official should verbalize the color and the number of the player who was fouled. Then verbally and visually inform partners of the number of free throws. (Manual pgs. 180-181 Sections 9&10)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a blocking foul 89% (including me). This is a player control foul 7%. This is incidental contact (no foul) 4%.