Watta ya got video?

[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.

[jkjenning]

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.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Good Grief!

1. First and foremost, you need to review your post(s) before you start throwing daggers. Yes, I said "set" as in, "his foot was not completely set on the floor," meaning that part of the foot was still off of the floor, I used it as a verb. You said, "What rule states that a defender has to have his heel down to have that foot set?" When you used the word "set" you used it in a different context, as if the word "set" was a state of being and part of the definition for LGP (which, BTW may also be a verb, I'm not sure). I'm sure the use of the word "set" is officialese (so to speak) but it's been used a couple of times in the thread as if the foot being "set" as if that word was part of the definition for LGP, which I'm sure we both agree it isn't.

2. 4-23-2 is the rule that I was looking out when I was trying to figure out what rule applied, so apparently I got that right. Looking at 4-23-2(a), and discarding all the filler words, the operative words that we are really left with are "guard .. both .. feet .. touching .. court." The only one of these terms that is defined in the rule book is court (court areas to be specific). You have emphasized the word "touching" in your argument, leaving me with the impression that you consider it an important term. So help me understand, why do you consider the definition of only one of the words in the rule to be important when it comes to defining this particular rule.

and finally:

3. More dagger throwing. Tell me exactly what I have "made up." I'm new, so I agree, I may not yet understand the concept .... but I didn't make up anything.

When I first registered on this board in December it became apparent to me that I would have to quickly decide who in this collective basketball officiating brain trust to pay attention to and who to ignore. You are one of the ones I pay attention to as is Nevada, BITS, some guy named Rutledge, and a few others. What I liked about you was your strict interpretation of the rules and the challenges issued to other people to show you where it says this or where it doesn't say that. Your particular challenge to me was that the rule does not say that the heel must touch the court to establish LGP, it only says that the "foot" (that specific word, and in the past you have been all about specifics) merely must touch the court. I've never disagreed with you, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what it says. All I've done is define "foot" and like it or not, the heel is part of the foot.

So, with all that said, my lovely bride has summoned me to an enchilada dinner and I'm hungry. I'll be back later.

Added after dinner:

This whole situation puts me in a real pickle. Not only do I have to ignore JRutledge but I can't describe play by play a video without making sure that Jurassic Referee agrees with the termanology I'm using. Old School do you need a Padawan Learner by chance??

[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.

[KingTripleJump]

Charge

Great call.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

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)

[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.