Couldn't help but think of todays...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Once again, the rule says toward, not forward. There's a difference. You can move toward someone without moving forward (which is actually what the center did). And you can move forward without moving toward someone that's to the north of you.

The way you're viewing this, the rule is pointless; as there's no way a player can move laterally to cut off an opponent without breaking your interpretation of "towards."

There is a difference between moving "towards" the opponent's path and moving towards the opponent. In this play, she moves towards her opponent's path; perfectly legal. Don't confuse the two.

As she is moving slightly backward (obliquely) at the point of contact, she's actually moving away from the opponent at that point.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The way you're viewing this, the rule is pointless; as there's no way a player can move laterally to cut off an opponent without breaking your interpretation of "towards."

No it isn't. It's simple: don't create contact by moving into the dribbler. She could have easy quit on the charge and still have been able to maintain defensive pressure inside without making contact. Frontcourt basketball players do it all the time.

There is a difference between moving "towards" the opponent's path and moving towards the opponent. In this play, she moves towards her opponent's path; perfectly legal. Don't confuse the two.

I didn't. She moved towards the opponent. The distance between the two became shorter because she was moving towards the opponent. Thus, she is liable for contact made.

As she is moving slightly backward (obliquely) at the point of contact, she's actually moving away from the opponent at that point.

She didn't move backwards even an inch. If anything, considering the volleyball line that she was stepping on when she began the cutoff, she actually moved forward from that point. Look at her feet. C'mon.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I didn't. She moved towards the opponent. The distance between the two became shorter because she was moving towards the opponent. Thus, she is liable for contact made.

The distance was closed by the dribbler not the defender.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

No it isn't. It's simple: don't create contact by moving into the dribbler. She could have easy quit on the charge and still have been able to maintain defensive pressure inside without making contact. Frontcourt basketball players do it all the time.

Completely irrelevant to whether her actions were legal or not. We don't officiate based on what the player could have done differently. That sounds like a coach's perspective to me.

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I didn't. She moved towards the opponent. The distance between the two became shorter because she was moving towards the opponent. Thus, she is liable for contact made.

The distance became shorter because the dribbler was moving towards here. Again, a completely irrelevant statement; otherwise defenders would always be liable for contact. Hell, even a defender moving straight backwards and getting run over would be liable if that was at all relevant.

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

She didn't move backwards even an inch. If anything, considering the volleyball line that she was stepping on when she began the cutoff, she actually moved forward from that point. Look at her feet. C'mon.

C'mon is right. The defender may have moved slightly towards the division line, but given the angles of travel, she was also moving slightly away from the dribbler.

If the dribbler hadn't been moving, then B1's movements would have had her moving farther away from the dribbler.

I have to echo scrapper's question after your statement about her not getting "set."