Couldn't help but think of todays...

[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."