PC, great call.

Ol' Rookie Dude had some tough calls this night...or tough no calls...and for you "no call" advocates...how do ya like this one?

Same game...2nd OT...15.2 seconds left...tie game...White team player dribbler A1 (was the set defender on the previous "charge" video)does he get shoulder past moving orange defender?...I'm Trail.

http://www.sportstricities.com/sport...-8574711c.html

Looks like the red team got job in this game. You telling me the kid didn't step out of bounds on that no block call. The no-block call was a pretty safe no call because the kid didn't lose control of the ball, a more experienced defensive player would have made sure he's going down with him. Then what would your call have been? The reason I say the red team got job because that was not a foul the lead called later. That was good defense on the red, imo.

Ben from Virginia will be along shortly to agree with you too. He also thinks that it's <b>always</b> a block if the contact is on a secondary defender in the restricted area.

Sureasheck was a close one. I went back and freeze-framed it too. Saw it exactly the same way that you described above, which was also my first impression. Great call!

When they're that close, it's pretty hard to fault an official for going the other way either in real time. Not when you have to freeze-frame a replay to confirm a call.

Again, great call in a tough situation imo. Big ups, partner.

Why don't you just tell him to go f@ck himself and be done with it?

:rolleyes:

What rule states that a defender has to have his <b>heel</b> down to have that foot set?:confused:

I thought the criteria used to ascertain LGP in this particular case was for the defender to have <b>both</b> feet <b>touching</b> the playing court in the shooter's path before the shooter became airborne. There has <b>never</b> been a requirement to have the complete foot flat on the floor as far as I know. What am I missing?

I'm not suggesting that you are missing anything. Just a play by play where I am trying to describe what I see and take everything that might be important into consideration.

Although, with that said, it seems to me based on the camera angle, that the defensive player was still moving laterally when the offensive player went airborne .. but I don't know if that makes a difference or not .. just trying to learn something here.

That's not what I asked though.

Is there a rule that says a defender's foot <b>isn't</b> set if the heel of that foot is still up in the air? That's what your post is intimating, if I'm reading it correctly. Again, under my understanding of the rule, the foot only has to touch the floor to be set. There is no requirement that I've ever heard of that states that the defender's heel must be down. If there is, please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking.

I'm willing to bet there isn't, without checking too hard. Not just because I haven't seen it, either. Also because it's bad defense to have your heel on the floor; nothing says a player must be playing bad defense to draw a charge.

:rolleyes: This is a charge. OS, who writes your material for you? It is a comedy act isn't it?

Great no call! Defense starts falling from minimal contact. Offensive player keeps control of the ball.

I know I shouldn't reply. That being said, every call on both videos have been correct, IMO! The shooting foul in the 2nd OT looks like a great call. The defensive player has his arms straight up and then brings one down on the shooter's arm. The angle is not great but it very much looks like a foul.

A more "experienced defensive" player would have also drawn a block call from me if the offensive player goes down! The "better defensive" player beats his man to the sideline and cuts off his route.

By the way, great job on posting these videos RookieDude! We need more of these on the forum to learn from! It would be helpful to have a place specifically for videos!

Yes you did, you asked, "What am I missing?" To which I replied, "I'm not suggesting that you are missing anything."

Believe it or not, not everyone who posts on this board is challenging another person's interpretation of a rule.

You mentioned in your first post that, "I wish that I could freeze-frame that one." Since you didn't know how to do it, I did it, and described what I saw as throughly as possible, frame by frame, taking into consideration everything that I thought might or might not be important. I never said anything about the heel needing to be down before the foot is set.

But, since you mentioned it, I haven't seen anything in the rules that talk about the foot needing to be "set" before LGP is established. What does that mean? How does the foot become "set." (I have been looking at 4:23:1-5).

However, with all that said, since you now have me thinking about it and since I know you are a stickler for strict interpretation of the rules, based upon what the rule actually says, not what it infers, let me offer this for discussion. The rule states that the player must have both "feet" on the floor in order to establish legal guarding position. Feet being the plural of "foot." I looked in the rulebook for a definition of feet and foot .. if it's there, I didn't see it. I went to a medical dictionary and copied the following definition of "foot":

"Foot: The end of the leg on which a person normally stands and walks. The foot is an extremely complex anatomic structure made up of 26 bones and 33 joints that must work together with 19 muscles and 107 ligaments to execute highly precise movements."

So, given that the definition of the "foot", two of which are "feet", is the sum of all the the different parts at the end of the leg, it would therefore mean that, yes, the rule does state that the heel must be down, as must the toe also be down, before LGP can be established.