The Official Forum - Watta ya got video?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Watta ya got video? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/32730-watta-ya-got-video.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomegun

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

I watched it real time and was satisfied it was a charge.

Great call. Great no call on the second video.

I have player control....and I'm probably selling the sh.it out of it too:D

RD,
I believe that both of your calls were correct.

On the first play the defender gets to the spot on the floor with both feet down before the offensive player goes airborne. = Charge.

For the second play, the defender does nothing wrong. He has LGP and moves laterally to maintain it. However, I can't see anything that the offensive player does that is illegal either. There is next to no contact. There is no push off with the left arm or lowering of the shoulder. I believe that the defender just went down trying to draw a charge. He correctly didn't get it. Then the offensive player trips on the fallen defender, which in NFHS is not a foul. He does a fantastic job of keeping his dribble alive as he falls to the floor and then gets back up. There is no travel here. The player is dribbling the entire time.
Finally the Lead makes an excellent foul call on the shot. The defender whacked the shooter with his right arm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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

:rolleyes:

Hmm...good idea.

I'm glad you thought of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmaellis

1) I never said anything about the heel needing to be down before the foot is set.

2) 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).

3)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.

1) Oh? Then who was the jmaellis that stated the following back at 6:05pm?--- In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor, you can see the Southridge player left foot is not completely SET on the floor, it looks like his heel was still up." If you go back and review the posts, you're the only that's been talking about a foot being set. I pointed out that both feet just have to be touching the court.

2) That's exactly what I was asking you. What has whether a heel is off the floor or not got to do with anything? NFHS rule 4-23-2(a), which is the applicable rule for the block/charge being discussed simply states that to attain LGP, the guard must have both feet touching the playing court. There nothing anywhere stating that the foot must be flat on the court, and there never has been.

3) And this statement of your's is exactly why I was asking the questions. It is wrong. You don't understand the concept and you're making up your own interpretation. There is NO rule requiring that the heel has to touch the court before a defender can attain LGP. The rule says that the foot merely has to touch the court.

Don't take any of that personally either.

For the first one, I couldn't fault an official for going either way on the call, but the replay confirms that his call was in fact correct.

For the second, great no call. There was hardly any contact, and the defender tried to "take the charge," and the official didn't give it to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmaellis

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.

Hey, Nevada - this post is almost worthy of your warped, legal mind. :D

jmaellis - you're trying to read too much into it. The NFHS rules don't specify by definition that the word "foot" implies the "whole foot". Are you thinking that a player will never establish LGP if thay play on the balls of their feet the entire game? Should we consider a pivot foot is never established if the whole foot is never placed on the floor? (Hmmm...that would eliminate that whole "hopping on the non-pivot foot" non-travel argument...)

Anyway, my initial reaction on the first look at the play was a charge, and that's all the OP had - one look. The more I watch, the more I wonder if the defender was already starting to go down, and how much contact actually occured on the torso of the defender. But that's the advantage to having many looks at a replay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

...
3) And this statement of your's is exactly why I was asking the questions. It is wrong. You don't understand the concept and you're making up your own interpretation.

How long does it take for you to understand that jmaellis was trying to be helpful and learn? Nothing was being challenged, helpful observations were being made and some questions were being asked. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School

The only way I would call a PC is if the guy was standing there when he made his move from the top.

Perhaps you should purchase (and then read) a rulebook.

Rookie - nice job. Gotta love those district games. Packed gym, loud, bang-bang plays...whoeee!! Thanks for posting these clips, it's nice to see some bball from the east side again!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkjenning

How long does it take you to figure out, Bucky, that I was trying to help him learn? You know, learn how the LGP rules really work?

It'll probably take you a long time, seeing that you're dumb as a post when it comes to officiating, and always have been.

Don't take that personally either. It's a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hey, Nevada - this post is almost worthy of your warped, legal mind. :D

That's funny, Mr. Redundant Guy. :)

Now since, jmaellis, is a newer official and really is trying to learn about this stuff, I for one am going to help him as nicely as I can.

1. JR is right. INITIAL LGP (4-23-2a+b) only requires that both feet be touching the playing court and that the front of the guard's torso is facing the opponent. In this play, both of those requirements are fulfilled. We'll discuss the timing of when they are met in #3.

2. Since the game of basketball is often played by being on the balls of one's feet, then it is logical to conclude that no rule would require a player to stand flat-footed.

3. 4-23-5b requires the guard to have obtained "legal position" before the opponent left the floor, if the opponent is airborne. Notice that there is no requirement that the defender must be stationary or not moving. By looking at the video, the defender got both feet touching the floor, thus taking his spot on the court, PRIOR to the offensive player's second foot coming off the floor, thus making him airborne.

Once the defender obtains his spot on the floor he cannot move to a new spot AFTER the offensive player is airborne, but he can move his body, arms, and even jump vertically.

10.6.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-7)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Hit the snooze button... I should have realized your true intent was to be helpful.
Bucky? :confused:

BTW how about a big thumbs up http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/2thumbs.gif to Rookie Dude for not only working this contest and making some big decisions, but for sharing them with all of us, so that we can learn and get better. THANKS!!!

PS I don't know how you or someone else posted these video clips, but I would love to get a copy of the DVD of this game for training purposes for my local area officials. PM me, please.