Classic charge?

[ranjo]

I also saw what I thought was a charge, but when they showed it again at another angle, It looked as if the defender may have slid in at the last second. Not having the electronic gizmos that let you replay it over and over, I will say the official either got it right or has gotten a call from his supervisor to discuss it.

At this level, along with great authority and great compensation, goes great accountability.

[Coltdoggs]

He was moving...he didn't have his feet set....

Sin,
Coach

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Coltdoggs

He was moving...he didn't have his feet set....

Sin,
Coach

This is definitely a classic coach/fan misconception. There is NO requirement for a defender to have his/her feet set in order for a charge (player control foul) to occur.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by wanja

This is definitely a classic coach/fan misconception. There is NO requirement for a defender to have his/her feet set in order for a charge (player control foul) to occur.

Mostly that's true. In order to establish LGP the defender must have his feet "set" at some point, for a brief amount of time. But mostly yes, you're right.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Mostly that's true. In order to establish LGP the defender must have his feet "set" at some point, for a brief amount of time. But mostly yes, you're right.

That is not true. You must have two feet on the floor and facing your opponent, there is nothing about being feet being set.

Peace

[Red_Killian]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is not true. You must have two feet on the floor and facing your opponent, there is nothing about being feet being set.

Peace

Didn't you just state the definition of set as it is commonly used? Getting set is establishing LGP with 2 feet on the floor, facing opponent. After obtaining LGP the "set" requirement is no longer required. I understand we should use the term LGP but most coaches still understand set better than LGP.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Red_Killian

Didn't you just state the definition of set as it is commonly used? Getting set is establishing LGP with 2 feet on the floor, facing opponent. After obtaining LGP the "set" requirement is no longer required. I understand we should use the term LGP but most coaches still understand set better than LGP.

Red,

Go back and read what I was responding to. BITS was talking about "establishing LGP." Establishing and maintaining are two different things.

And yes, I use LGP when talking to coaches. If they do not understand what that means, that is there problem.

Peace

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Red_Killian

Didn't you just state the definition of set as it is commonly used? Getting set is establishing LGP with 2 feet on the floor, facing opponent. After obtaining LGP the "set" requirement is no longer required. I understand we should use the term LGP but most coaches still understand set better than LGP.

We are starting to lose the point here. Granted, if both feet are touching the floor, they are set for at least an instance. The point really is can a defender be moving (not have feet set) and still draw a player control foul. The answer is absolutely yes. I cry uncle on the very minor side issue.

[wanja]

I second JR's point that the only requirements for establishing legal guarding position per rule 4-23-2 are
a The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guards's torso must be facing the opponent.

Again, there is NO requirement for the feet to be set in order for a player control foul to occur. For the coach's benefit consider these examples.

a. defender at top of key with lgp and steps straight back towards foul line. While defender is moving dribbler impacts defender in chest with dribblers shoulder. -- player control foul

b. defender is stationary with legal guarding position (lgp) as dribbler rapidly approaches, at last second, before severe impact, defender turns slightly (and shuffles feet) in order to protect self -- player control foul

c. defender is moving along with dribbler toward dribbler's basket when dribbler sharply changes direction and impacts defender in torso - player control foul

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by ranjo

I also saw what I thought was a charge, but when they showed it again at another angle, It looked as if the defender may have slid in at the last second. Not having the electronic gizmos that let you replay it over and over, I will say the official either got it right or has gotten a call from his supervisor to discuss it.

At this level, along with great authority and great compensation, goes great accountability.

Was the offensive player airborne? Unles he was airborne, whether or not he slid in at the last second is irrelevant.