Watta ya got video?

[todd66]

IMO, there is too much contact to no call. I agree that the right call was made. Great defensive help.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

I had player control on the live action, and the slo-mo replay confirmed it. A train wreck like that definitely requires a call. That's why we get the big bucks.

[jmaellis]

It is possible to freeze this video. Just pause it and then use the left and right arrow keys to move through the video frame by frame.

You can tell which foot belongs to who because the two players are wearing different styles of shoes; the Southridge player has broad blue stripe on his shoes.

In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor you can see that the Southridge player's left foot is not yet completely set on the floor, it looks to me like his heel is still up. It is also clear that the Kennewick player has started his shooting motion. In the next frame the Kennewick player has both feet off of the floor and it appears the the Southridge player's left food is now flat on the floor, but his left leg is at an angle and it appears that he is not vertical (I don't know if that matters or not, just throwing it in the mix). The next frame shows the Kennewick player in the air with the ball over his head, you can tell that the Southridge player's torso is still moving laterally toward the baseline as you now begin to see his left shoulder area. In the next frame the Kennewick player is still moving up (and presumably forward), you see a little more of the Southridge player's torso indicating that he is still moving laterally toward the baseline. Contact may have occurred in this frame, it's not clear. The next frame shows the ball has just left the Kennewick player's right hand and it's clear that contact has occurred.

Assuming that I got all that correct, does it change anyone's opinion?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor you can see that the Southridge player's left foot is not yet completely set on the floor, it looks to me like his heel is still up.

What rule states that a defender has to have his heel down to have that foot set?

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

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What rule states that a defender has to have his heel down to have that foot set?

I thought the criteria used to ascertain LGP in this particular case was for the defender to have both feet touching the playing court in the shooter's path before the shooter became airborne. There has never 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

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.

That's not what I asked though.

Is there a rule that says a defender's foot isn't 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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That's not what I asked though.

Is there a rule that says a defender's foot isn't 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.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That's not what I asked though.

Is there a rule that says a defender's foot isn't 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.

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.

[Teigan]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[M&M Guy]

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.

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

RD - Not that my opinion matters much, but absolutely great calls. IMO, you couldn't be happier with the video clips to back you up on those. Just fantastic work, to put it simply.

jmaelis - If you can get all of your 52 bones, 66 joints, 38 muscles, and 214 ligaments to be in physical contact with the ground at the same time, I'll side with you. Until then, I believe your rationale is slightly off.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

"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.

If that were true, the top of the foot would also be required to be on the floor since it is also part of the foot. Now, in all my days, I've never seen someone who can have the entire bottom of their foot in contact with the floor while also having the top of the foot also on the floor.

In fact, it might be necessary for the player to fillet his foot in order to get enough of it in contact with the floor since the bones would not be able to touch the floor with the skin in the way.

[Mark Dexter]

In reference to the first play posted (end of regulation) had to look at it in slo-mo myself, but I think the charge is right on.

If I'm standing there in real time, though - oy - not sure what I'd call (although L would have had a bit better view than that camera).