Fun With And One …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

Was this correctly ruled a blocking foul? Did the defender obtain a legal guarding position before this contact occurred? Did the correct official make the ruling? Does the official use proper signals?

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

Reminder: IAABO uses its own signals (which doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum), that may not necessarily be the same as NFHS signals.

Three choices: This is a player control foul. This is a blocking foul. This is incidental contact (no foul).

My comment: This is a blocking foul. Defender White #2 moved to her left after airborne shooter Black #12 had left the floor. Center signaled the blocking foul with her fists on her hips rather than her open hands on her hips (but otherwise a good strong signal, including counting the goal).

[JRutledge]

Looks like a block to me. The defender is sliding over after the shooter goes airborne.

Also not sure what signal is different, look like the NF signals to me.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Looks like a block to me. The defender is sliding over after the shooter goes airborne.

Also not sure what signal is different, look like the NF signals to me.

Peace

I think he meas "fists on hips" v. "open hands on hips"

I agree with the block call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think he meas "fists on hips" v. "open hands on hips"

Does anyone really care about this part other than a few people that have nothing better to worry about?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Center signaled the blocking foul with her fists on her hips rather than her open hands on her hips (but otherwise a good strong signal, including counting the goal).

I've been doing this for forty years and can't seem to break the habit (despite trying). Best I can do is to use the correct (open hands on hips) signal while reporting the blocking foul in the reporting area. Half wrong is better than being totally wrong? Right?

What’s worse than finding a worm in an apple that you’re eating? Finding half a worm! Happy April Fool's Day everybody. I'll be here all day folks. Enjoy the all you can eat shrimp buffet.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... wrong signal, but only people that might care is the supervisor or state organization that assigns this game.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Does anyone really care about this part other than a few people that have nothing better to worry about?

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, yes, a committee of trained observers/evaluators that control one's promotion up (and demotion down) the ladder.

Of course, proper signals (considered a part of mechanics) play only a very small role in the one's overall evaluation, but it's still on the observation/evaluation check list.

For some reason, various individual player control foul signals seem to be accepted, probably because many veteran observers/evaluators have their own individual player control foul signal variations.

Regarding player control foul signals, it's like the Wild Wild West here in my little corner of Connecticut.

If the the NFHS changes the player control foul signal to the team control foul signal, maybe it will be like a new sheriff coming to town.

[Camron Rust]

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

[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.