Watta ya got video?

[canuckref]

first play: d has lgp (doesn't matter if both feet are on the floor according to ncaa rules) great call.

second play: good no call, player flopped

nice job under tremendous pressure

[jmaellis]

Since I'm now clear that the requirement (as it relates to the feet) in order to establish LGP is that any part of the foot is touching the floor, would anybody be interested in discussing verticality, specifically does verticality have anything to do with whether this is a block or PC?

Disclaimer: The following is a question, not an opinion or an interpretation unless so stated. Any description of the event or non-event, the placement of the feet/hands/body of a player are for the sole purpose of thoroughly explaining the situation so that everything that might be important is included for the purpose of a through analysis.

In the frame of the video where the offensive player is airborne (both feet off of the floor), and the defensive player has both feet touching the floor, it's seems that the defensive player was positioned at an angle. I have been told (in a discussion that I believe occurred on this board) that verticality is essentially straight up from the floor from a natural stance.

Because of the camera placement, the offensive player occludes our view of the defensive player, but is does seem as though the defensive player's body was still moving from left to right while the offensive player was airborne, and that the defensive player's body was still catching up with his momentum when contact occurred.

Does vertically play any part in whether or not this is a block or a PC? If it does, from where does the vertical boundary begin on each side of the defensive player's body?

If the boundaries of the vertical cylinder (I don't know of that is officialese, but it sounds descriptive for what I am trying to describe) begins on the outside of each foot and go straight up, that would be a lot of space in this scenario. In this case, if a line was drawn straight up from the outside of the defensive player's left foot where the foot was in contact with the court when the offensive player went airborne, and had the contact not occurred (for instance if the offensive player was one step slower), the defensive player would have continued in motion from left to right and ultimately would have occupied that space and the contact may not have ever occurred.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Since I'm now clear that the requirement (as it relates to the feet) in order to establish LGP is that any part of the foot is touching the floor, would anybody be interested in discussing verticality, specifically does verticality have anything to do with whether this is a block or PC?

Disclaimer: The following is a question, not an opinion or an interpretation unless so stated. Any description of the event or non-event, the placement of the feet/hands/body of a player are for the sole purpose of thoroughly explaining the situation so that everything that might be important is included for the purpose of a through analysis.


In the frame of the video where the offensive player is airborne (both feet off of the floor), and the defensive player has both feet touching the floor, it's seems that the defensive player was positioned at an angle. I have been told (in a discussion that I believe occurred on this board) that verticality is essentially straight up from the floor from a natural stance.

While that is basically correct, verticality is ALL about being able to jump into or raise your hands into the space above you once you have LGP....not about establishing LGP.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Because of the camera placement, the offensive player occludes our view of the defensive player, but is does seem as though the defensive player's body was still moving from left to right while the offensive player was airborne, and that the defensive player's body was still catching up with his momentum when contact occurred.

Right there, you have all you need to know about the left-right movement. If, when the shooter left the ground, the defender's torso was in the path of the shooter, the defender has position. In this case, we were looking at the back of the shooter. If you can't see the defender, he could only have been in the path of the shooter. If there is still a little left-right movement, it doesn't matter...he's already there. He doesn't have to be stone still, just in the path before shooter jumps.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Does vertically play any part in whether or not this is a block or a PC? If it does, from where does the vertical boundary begin on each side of the defensive player's body?

Not in this case unless the player was moving forward or brought his arms down over the shooter.

Verticality has nothing to do with lateral movement.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

If the boundaries of the vertical cylinder (I don't know of that is officialese, but it sounds descriptive for what I am trying to describe) begins on the outside of each foot and go straight up, that would be a lot of space in this scenario. In this case, if a line was drawn straight up from the outside of the defensive player's left foot where the foot was in contact with the court when the offensive player went airborne, and had the contact not occurred (for instance if the offensive player was one step slower), the defensive player would have continued in motion from left to right and ultimately would have occupied that space and the contact may not have ever occurred.

For verticality, imagine a flat wall between the defender and shooter right at the belly/face/arms of the defender...not a cylinder. If at the time of contact, the defender is pushing that wall forward, that player is not staying within his vertical space.

EDIT: In fact, if you imagine the wall shifting such that it is alway between the defender and shooter, you can even use it for situations where the shooter is going by the defender. In that case, if the defender is pushing the wall towards the shooter at the time of contact, they've lost LGP and get a block.

Again, it about the defender getting their body into the path before the shooter jumps...even if the defender is still moving. Any additional lateral movement will either be neutral or will lessen the contact.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

.....

EDIT: In fact, if you imagine the wall shifting such that it is alway between the defender and shooter, you can even use it for situations where the shooter is going by the defender. In that case, if the defender is pushing the wall toward the shooter at the time of contact, they've lost LGP and get a block.

Again, it about the defender getting their body into the path before the shooter jumps...even if the defender is still moving. Any additional lateral movement will either be neutral or will lessen the contact.

Thank you for all that, it was helpful and appreciated. I'm glad I went back and reviewed the post and noticed the edit.

I understand the concept of the wall directly in front of the player and how a player who has established LGP who breaches the vertical plane in front of him by bring his arms down over an opposing player or who pushes the wall into an opponent has committed a foul (illegal use of the hands and blocking respectively??).

Disclaimer: The following is a question, not an opinion or an interpretation unless so stated. Any description of the event or non-event, the placement of the feet/hands/body of a player are for the sole purpose of thoroughly explaining the situation so that everything that might be important is included for the purpose of a through analysis.

What about a situation in which B1 who has established LGP and extends his arm, bent at the elbow directly in front of him at a 90 degree angle to the floor; A1, who is dribbling the ball then runs directly into the front of B1 who never moved his arm from in front of him. 4-23-1 states that a player who extends an arm into the path of an opponent is not considered to have legal position if contact occurs. Since the vertical wall in front of B1 begins right at his face/belly/arms (I'm assuming that you mean arms against the body or at the side), the contact with B1's forearm occurred beyond the wall and in the path of A1 who was headed directly for B1 (block?).

Is there any allowance given to B1 considering, that if he had not had his arm in front of him, A1 would have ran directly into his torso?

I'm asking the brain trust because this exact situation occurred right in front of me during a youth rec. game. I called a block, which met with many boos, moans and groans from the stands. My partner was an experienced official and backed me on the court, but later told me said that he would have called the PC because B1's arm didn't put A1 at a disadvantage as he was running directly into B1 and made no effort to change direction. A different experienced official told me that he would have called a blarge because even though B1 was technically wrong for having his arm out in front of him, A1 was going to run into him anyway. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it further with other refs. Anybody have any advice?

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by jmaellis
A different experienced official told me that he would have called a blarge because even though B1 was technically wrong for having his arm out in front of him, A1 was going to run into him anyway.

An experienced official would have intentionally called a BLARGE?
Hmmmm, not I...the way you explained it sounds like a Player Control foul to me.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

An experienced official would have intentionally called a BLARGE?
Hmmmm, not I...the way you explained it sounds like a Player Control foul to me.

Yes, he would said he would have called a double foul; block on B1 and charge on A1. His rational was that he didn't want to call only the PC because B1 should not have had his arm out in front of him like that, and he didn't want to call only the block because if B1 arm hadn't been there A1 would have ran directly into him.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Yes, he would said he would have called a double foul; block on B1 and charge on A1. His rational was that he didn't want to call only the PC because B1 should not have had his arm out in front of him like that, and he didn't want to call only the block because if B1 arm hadn't been there A1 would have ran directly into him.

Technically speaking...it would probably be a charge and illegal use of hands to make the double foul...which IS possible but not advised.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

What about a situation in which B1 who has established LGP and extends his arm, bent at the elbow directly in front of him at a 90 degree angle to the floor; A1, who is dribbling the ball then runs directly into the front of B1 who never moved his arm from in front of him. 4-23-1 states that a player who extends an arm into the path of an opponent is not considered to have legal position if contact occurs. Since the vertical wall in front of B1 begins right at his face/belly/arms (I'm assuming that you mean arms against the body or at the side), the contact with B1's forearm occurred beyond the wall and in the path of A1 who was headed directly for B1 (block?).

Is there any allowance given to B1 considering, that if he had not had his arm in front of him, A1 would have ran directly into his torso?

I'm asking the brain trust because this exact situation occurred right in front of me during a youth rec. game. I called a block, which met with many boos, moans and groans from the stands. My partner was an experienced official and backed me on the court, but later told me said that he would have called the PC because B1's arm didn't put A1 at a disadvantage as he was running directly into B1 and made no effort to change direction. A different experienced official told me that he would have called a blarge because even though B1 was technically wrong for having his arm out in front of him, A1 was going to run into him anyway. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it further with other refs. Anybody have any advice?

Sounds like those arms are not extended "into" the path of the opponent. That rule is really refering to a player extending their arms to the side into the opponents path when their body is not in the opponents path.

The defender IS allowed to extend their arms in front of them to cushion an imminent blow....just as they are allow to duck or turn away from the contact to lessen the impact....and still draw the charge. They must be careful to only use the arms to cushion the blow and not push/hold/grab.

While I wouldn't advise calling a double foul on your play, I do see it as a charge unless the arms created some sort of advantage for the defender that didn't otherwise exist or did more than just have them out there.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sounds like those arms are not extended "into" the path of the opponent. That rule is really refering to a player extending their arms to the side into the opponents path when their body is not in the opponents path.

The defender IS allowed to extend their arms in front of them to cushion an imminent blow....just as they are allow to duck or turn away from the contact to lessen the impact....and still draw the charge. They must be careful to only use the arms to cushion the blow and not push/hold/grab.

While I wouldn't advise calling a double foul on your play, I do see it as a charge unless the arms created some sort of advantage for the defender that didn't otherwise exist or did more than just have them out there.

Well stated Camron...I don't see too many double foul situations when one of the two players is dribbling the ball...usually one foul happens before the other, IMO...my double fouls usually happen in the post.