![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
And regarding your play D(which pretty much says it all), both the NFHS and the NCAA have issued case book plays stating that in a play like that, the foul is to be charged to the defender. It is hardly a "logical conclusion" for you to try and claim something that is diametrically opposite to the written rulings. What you fail to understand is that a defender with LGP loses that LGP if he moves laterally/obliquely into the path of an airborne shooter if the defender does move AFTER the airborne shooter left his feet. A defender can't legally jump INTO the path of an airborne shooter AFTER the shooter has left his feet. That's a basic rules concept, Mark. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:42pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
I'm surprised, no, amazed that at this poor, weak, lame argument you offering.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith Last edited by BktBallRef; Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:16am. |
|
|||
Quote:
Had B1's movement been lateral or oblique, there would not have been contact.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() This is the play that MTD Sr. sent to Peter Webb....from way back on p1 of this thread. A1 goes airborne. A1 will miss B1 completely if B1 doesn't move from the position that B1 had when A1 went airborne. B1 then moved sideways into the path of airborne A1. Mark said it's a foul on A1. Peter Webb and everybody else in the damn world said it's a block on B1. If B1 moves sideways into the path of airborne A1, he is neither maintaining or establishing a freaking legal guarding position. If B1 moves sideways under an airborne shooter, he quite simply does not HAVE a legal guarding position. That's an absolute fundamental call under every basketball ruleset on this planet. Mark still insists that this is a foul on A1. Does anybody agree with him? Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:32am. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
|||
MTD, Jr. and I got home about 45 min. ago from officiating in a boys' H.S. team shootout at The Univ. of Findlay and we are now leaving to watch Jr. and Andy play in a baseball game at 6pm. But I just checked my email and received an email from Peter Webb of Maine. Many of you know that Peter is the go to guy for NFHS rulings. I will post the email that I sent him and his reply to me, but I will tell you in advance that he agrees with my ruling in Play D.
MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Btw, to date, not one responder here has agreed with you. Co-incidence? ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
JR: I am not a nameless poster on the NFHS Discussion Forum, I use the same name there as here. Here is the exchange of emails (I have blocked out Peter's email address, but you can contact him through the Maine Prinicipals' Association at http://www.MPA.cc): P. Webb: Moving to maintian a legal guarding position question. From: Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ([email protected]) Sent: Sat 6/14/08 11:44 PM To: Webb, Peter A. ([email protected]) Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Basketball Official Boys'/Girls' High School Since 1971 Women's College Since 1974 OhioHSAA no.: 104563 MichiganHSAA no.: 322997 USA Basketball Referee (FIBA) no.: 5204 Ohio Association of Basketball Officials Int'l. Assn. of Approved Bkb. Off., Inc./Lake Erie Dist. Bd. #55 Trumbull Co. Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. Bkb. Off. Assn.: Rules Interpreter & Instructional Chairman (1990-99) Jun. 14/Sat.(11:44pmEDT), 2008 to: Peter A. Webb Basketball Commissioner Maine Principals’ Association subject: BKB: Moving to maintian a legal guarding position question. Peter: A discussion on the NFHS Basketball Discussion Group regarding moving to maintain a legal guarding position. I have written four plays and have given my ruling for each play using the definition of a legal guarding position in NFHS R4-S23. I appreciate it if you would read them and tell me what you think. The key is Play D; I wrote the plays in a particular order so as to build a case for my ruling in Play D. Play A: A1 dribbles toward B1 while B1 is standing in front of A1. A1, makes contact with the front of B1's torso. RULING: Foul by A1. Play B: A1 stops his dribble and jumps directly toward B1 while B1 is standing in front of A1. A1, while airborne, makes contact with the front of B1's torso. RULING: Foul by A1. Play C: A1 dribbles toward B1 but changes direction so as to go around B1. B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occurred. RULING: Foul by A1. Play D: A1 stops his dribble and jumps toward B1 but at an angle that will enable him to go past B1 if B1 either does not move or moves directly backward along A1's path before A1 went airborne. BUT, B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occurred. RULING: Based upon the definition of guarding and Plays A, B, and C, the only logical conclusion is a foul by A1. Mark Re: P. Webb: Moving to maintian a legal guarding position question. From: [email protected] Sent: Tue 6/17/08 11:33 AM To: [email protected] Hi Mark, The play situations and rulings that you have put are a good way of teaching/understanding 'guarding-block/charge' as per rules 4.7; 4.23 Rulings are accurate as per rule. Peter As one can see, I copied Plays A, B, C, and D verbatim in my email to Peter. MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
Quote:
If you move INTO the path of an airborne player and there's contact, block. Period. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() (sorry couldn't resist)
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
So what you & Peter are saying is any defender who establishes LGP can legally move under an airborne player with the ball. And the airborne player is responsible for any subsequent contact.
Sorry Mark, I don't agree. As was posted previously you ignore completely the underlying principle that the airborne player has a right to the spot he's going to land on. This is vital for the safety of the players.
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
Mark, his interpretation is so egregiously wrong that it's absolutely ridiculous.
Again, ask him this: AFTER AN AIRBORNE PLAYER HAS LEFT HIS FEET, CAN A DEFENDER LEGALLY MOVE LATERALLY OR OBLIQUELY INTO THAT AIRBORNE PLAYER'S PATH? I await your response to that question. I would have e-mailed him myself but your link doesn't work. I'll try to find another e-mail addy for him. If you can post one, I'll use that. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:57am. |
|
|||
Quote:
I e-mailed Peter Webb and asked him the same question above, explained the play being discussed and also gave him a link to this thread. Apparently, I wasn't the only one. He responded with the following statement in an e-mail sent to Mark DeNucci Sr., c.c-ed to me also. "I have received a couple of notes from people who know me which seem to indicate that a posting with a reference to a requested response from me has resulted in readers (I was not aware that there was any readers) thinking that I am indicating that a defender can obtain a legal guarding position after an opponent has become airborne. Obviously the rule does NOT permit that." That's pretty much self-explanatory imo. He also said to Mark "I assumed that you were indicating the difference between the rule abiding obtaining a legal guarding position prior to an opponent becoming airborne vs the opponent already being airborne." I didn't post the complete e-mail, just the parts that I thought were pertinent. Mark can post the balance if he likes. Hopefully that'll end this one....unless Mark is reading that e-mail completely differently than I am. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:36pm. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Non-airborne shooter? | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 7 | Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:40pm |
no airborne shooter | Junker | Basketball | 24 | Sun Jan 14, 2007 06:34pm |
Airborne Passer vs Airborne Shooter | SDREGIIBB | Basketball | 8 | Mon Apr 11, 2005 04:33pm |
Airborne shooter | RookieDude | Basketball | 18 | Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:31am |
Airborne Shooter | JoeT | Basketball | 1 | Mon Apr 03, 2000 09:56am |