LGP on Airborne Shooter

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

Can't help but jump in here
(and hopefully the defenders will maintain their legal guarding positions... ),

but, when a post starts to disintigrate into a "how dare you take offense to my commentary and interpretation"... in my opinion... it becomes a peanut gallery mosh pit.

And... NO... I am not directing this sarcastic reply at anyone specific.
I am just amazed at the direction "too many" posts seem to take.

I really do love you guys... because once you filter away all the silt and mud, I do on occasion find that special nugget of officiating knowledge and wisdom.

Thanks !
Paul

And let me respond to your very kind words.

I fully expect that one fine day (after filtering away all of your own particular brand of silt & mud) we will finally locate a single small nugget of knowledge & wisdom.

I know there are some who doubt this, but I remain optimistic.

[lpneck]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Lets tweak Play B just a bit:

Play B-1: A1 stops his dribble and jumps directly toward B1 while B1 is standing in front of A1. After A1 becomes airborne B1 moves backwards in the same path as A1's leap. A1, while airborne, makes contact with the front of B1's torso. RULING: Foul by A1.

B1 is moving to maintain a LGP against A1. He is NOT moving TOWARD A1 when contact occurs. This is still a foul by A1.

MTD, Sr.

I will agree that this play could be ruled as a foul against A1, as B1 has NOT lost legal guarding position in this situation, which is why it is completely different than your other scenario.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

This is a play situation posted on the NFHS forum.....

Play: A1 with the ball leaves his feet to attempt a shot. Defender B1, who had a legal guarding position on A1 before A1 left his feet, now moves laterally(sideways) into the path of airborne A1 after A1 became airborne. Note that B1 does NOT move forward towards airborne A1, just laterally. If contact occurs, who should the foul be called on?

Thoughts?

I've got a block. I can't imagine the crap that would ensue if a PC was the correct call. Coaches would coach this defense and then it would get changed quite quickly to be a block.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

Can't help but jump in here
(and hopefully the defenders will maintain their legal guarding positions... ),

but, when a post starts to disintigrate into a "how dare you take offense to my commentary and interpretation"... in my opinion... it becomes a peanut gallery mosh pit.

And... NO... I am not directing this sarcastic reply at anyone specific.
I am just amazed at the direction "too many" posts seem to take.

I really do love you guys... because once you filter away all the silt and mud, I do on occasion find that special nugget of officiating knowledge and wisdom.

Thanks !
Paul

I see that you've made your usual contribution to officiating knowledge and wisdom. Thanks for jumping in.

[PSidbury]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I see that you've made your usual contribution to officiating knowledge and wisdom. Thanks for jumping in.

Wow.

"We have met the enemy and it be us."

(disclaimer: While I'm sure some will not be able to see the forest from the trees, believe it or not this is not commentary on labeling anybody an "enemy". This is reference to the familiar idiom that "upsetting forces exist within, not without"...)

Good luck,
Paul

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

Wow.

"We have met the enemy and it be us."

(disclaimer: While I'm sure some will not be able to see the forest from the trees, believe it or not this is not commentary on labeling anybody an "enemy". This is reference to the familiar idiom that "upsetting forces exist within, not without"...)

Good luck,
Paul

Another solid contribution to officiating knowledge and wisdom, Paul. Thank you for maintaining your high standards and your usual, distinct work.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Another solid contribution to officiating knowledge and wisdom, Paul. Thank you for maintaining your high standards and your usual, distinct work.

Nah, C- at best.

He got the quote wrong and the interpretation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

He got the quote wrong and the interpretation.

Yup, he definitely is maintaining his usual high standards and distinct work. The man is nothing but consistent in the eyes of those of us who comprise the Official Forum Peanut Gallery.

[PSidbury]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The man is nothing but consistent in the eyes of those of us who comprise the Official Forum Peanut Gallery.

(sigh…)

Seriously, I’m sorry you took offense to that comment.
My intent was never to encroach on the personal feelings of those within this forum.

Only to try to understand why any post should have to deteriorate into a finger-pointing exercise.

Paul

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

.. in my opinion... it becomes a peanut gallery mosh pit.

I really do love you guys... because once you filter away all the silt and mud, I do on occasion find that special nugget of officiating knowledge and wisdom.

Just keep filtering away the silt and mud from those of us in the Official Forum Peanut Gallery(tm) mosh pit, Paul. The best idea is maybe for you to just ignore us completely. Do that and your chances of finding those special nuggets will be greatly improved.

[PSidbury]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Just keep filtering away the silt and mud from those of us in the Official Forum Peanut Gallery(tm) mosh pit, Paul. The best idea is maybe for you to just ignore us completely. Do that and your chances of finding those special nuggets will be greatly improved.

Sir,

Why such a surly response to my sincere reply?

I mean, if it is your intention to play the part of the wry comic… ala, Archie Bunker… I can understand.

But without context to your chronic acrimony, I am having a hard time understanding why someone who is so established on this forum… and by proxy probably just as established as a referee… would utilize such a habitual caustic tone.

Paul

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

Sir,

Why such a surly response to my sincere reply?

I mean, if it is your intention to play the part of the wry comic… ala, Archie Bunker… I can understand.

But without context to your chronic acrimony, I am having a hard time understanding why someone who is so established on this forum… and by proxy probably just as established as a referee… would utilize such a habitual caustic tone.

Paul

Why such a surly response to my sincere reply also?

I wasn't playing the comic. My sincere advice to you was to just ignore the silt and mud of the Peanut Gallery.

This site has an "IGNORE" feature. Just enter the names of us silt'n'mudder peanut-gallerians and your problems should be over. You'll never have to put up with another one of our posts, and you'll never have to worry about acrimony again either.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

Sir,

Why such a surly response to my sincere reply?

I mean, if it is your intention to play the part of the wry comic… ala, Archie Bunker… I can understand.

But without context to your chronic acrimony, I am having a hard time understanding why someone who is so established on this forum… and by proxy probably just as established as a referee… would utilize such a habitual caustic tone.

Paul

That's just who he is. Like it or not. He's quite clearly not trying to win Miss Congeniality. He has stuff to offer once you get past the ogre on the outside.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That's just who he is. Like it or not. He's quite clearly not trying to win Miss Congeniality. He has stuff to offer once you get past the ogre on the outside.

Exactly. You may never come to love him. But if you really listen to him, you'll come to respect him and his opinions. Even when you disagree with him.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

"We have met the enemy and it be us."