I don't have any books with me.

Could you please quote me word for word which rule says LGP cannot be obtained after the shooter has begun the act of shooting? I've never read that.

Thanks?
I am still maintaining what i have from the start. B1 did not have LGP.

I have never read that a defender must establish LGP before a shooter begins his shooting motion. I have always thought it must be established before A1 gets airborne. I've been wrong all these years? If so I would really appreciate a word-for-word citation so I can stand corrected.

Here is the college rule, I guess HS rules are different in regards to airborne shooters :confused:

Rule 4-35:
Art. 4. To establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the
ball:
a. The guard shall have both feet touching the playing court. When the guard jumps into position initially, both feet must return to the playing court after the jump, for the guard to attain a guarding position.
b. The guard’s torso shall face the opponent.
c. No time and distance shall be required.
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court.Exception: (Men) Rule 4-35.7

Art. 5. To establish legal guarding position on a player without the ball:
a. Time and distance shall be required to attain an initial legal position;
b. The guard shall give the opponent the time and distance to avoid
contact;
c. The distance given by the opponent of the player without the ball need not be more than two strides; and
d. When the opponent is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court.

The only rules that apply to defending an airborne opponent are 4-23-4 and 4-23-5. What youre missing is anything that ties LGP to the shooting motion. You cant just find two separate rules and combine them on a whim.

4-23 Guadring

ART. 1...Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent....

Now how does a defender legally place the body in the path of an offensive player?

ART 2...To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.

Now when does a guard have to obtain LGP?

ART 4...Guarding an opponent with the ball or stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

ART. 5... Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.
d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

That's is. In the section that deals with defining guarding, nowhere do you find the act of shooting.

I'm not speaking specifically about this play. I'm talking about your general statement that a defender must obtain a legal position before the ball is gathered which is incorrect.

No call from me. Great offensive move; inadequate defensive move.

Out of curiousity, is inadequate a synonym for marginal or incidental?

You choose which one.

To me it can only apply to marginal, because there is nothing incidental about an airborne shooter not being able to land safely because of something the defender did.

I see inadequate here as meaning the defence wasn't doing enough to be legal.

I did what someone earlier suggested: to look at the video using YouTube's website, and not the embedded clip that was posted. I then could watch the video in full screen. Yes, the quality becomes a bit blurry, but it is still "clear enough".

There was no contact to warrant a PC. Anyone that calls a PC in this case is flat out wrong. And yes, that includes the official making the call on the floor. Even if that same action earlier in the game was a PC, it is still wrong to call this a PC here for consistency reasons; it is better to make 1 error than 2.

Furthermore, the only possible contact I see is best shown in the 2nd angle - which is that of A1's foot to B1's knee/leg which is outside of B1's frame.

Just before the feet exit the picture (cameraman wanted to get the ball and it's path), you can see A1's foot moving in a unnatural way. I don't believe that A1 would move his foot in this manner voluntarily, which leads me to a blocking call.

If there was in fact contact in the location that I mentioned, then the correct call is a block. If not, a no call is the correct call. I change my call to a block. But calling a PC is an egregious error.

So yes, inadequate defense by B meaning he didn't do enough to draw a PC foul or a no call. Furthermore, he did do enough to warrant a blocking call.

No doubt!

I always say, "when I kick one tonight, please dont mimic that call for consistency sake. No need for the crew to be consistently wrong."

Consistency ...
 

Why not? At least the crew is consistent. Isn't that an important part of officiating basketball? We try to be consistently right, and when that fails, we strive to be consistency wrong. As long as we're consistent? Right?

I have no idea if you're being serious or not...

I'm pretty sure that BM is being sarcastic. He knows that coaches know that we strive for consistency because this is a paramount goal to officiating from both the coaching and officiating perspective. Coaches that I've spoken to regarding the topic of "lowering our error rates", which would in fact increase inconsistency, rarely understand said topic - or at least need much more dialogue about how that topic works. Billy understands this, and his comment was likely tongue in cheek.

Philosophy
 

I am going to try this out this season.:cool:

Philosophy: General statement the defender must obtain a legal position before the ball is gathered.

Since gathering the ball is the motion that precedes the release of the ball, making this a try, and that the opposite of legal position is illegal position, makes this an easy one for me.




Rule 4-41-3. The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

This means that, as soon as a player gathers the ball, on say a layup, the shot has started and s/he is in the act of shooting.

Rule 4-23-2. To obtain an initial legal guarding positon.
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

This means that the defender must do these things before the offence starts the try in order to be legal.

Situation:

A1 dribbling/attacking the basket @ top of 3pt circle gets by his defender B1,
A1 dribbles left to the left baseline, like a layup drill.
A1 ended dribble (by gathering the ball) with 2feet off playing court just inside the 3pt. line, A1 is in the act of shooting.
@ Same time B2, who is guarding A2 on right block, sees A1 going to the basket.
@ This exact moment B2 is by rule guarding B2 and is not, and has not established legal guarding position on A1.

B2 has not obtained LGP on A1, before A1 started the attempt to throw for goal (in the act of shooting.) Any illegal contact by B2 that adversely affects A1s rhythm, speed, balance or quickness should be called a foul.

If B2 steps into A1 path now and causes contact it must, by rule be considered illegal.

Because A1 ended the dribble with 2feet in the air s/he may come down with 2 very long strides and dunk, and unless a defender was on the playing court and in A1 path before A1 was in the act of shooting, contact must be illegal.

Now you're just acting troll-like.

Wrong

All of that is true, but has nothing to do with LGP.




Yes, but again, nothing about LGP

No it doesn't. Your "logic" doesn't follow. It just meansd that the defnender must do thiese things before contact (or before the player becomes airborne). Read the "time and distance" requirements -- they have NOTHING to do with whether a try is even involved in the play.

Dude give it up!

You cannot support your premise. Stop trying to defend it...
The provision in the rule is

b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

It does not say started the gather, it does not say started act of shooting, it states before left the floor. This is consistent with the fact that anyone is entitled to a spot if they get there first. Once airborne the spot to land has been decided...

The dribbled must be in control and if gathering may still get the step. It is assumed that a player in control can change directions and avoid good defense. Do not penalize good defense because of this philosophical nonsense.

So far so good, but you probably should have stopped here.

Okay, you should look up the phrase "non sequitur." You can't quote two separate rules and assume there's some connection. There isn't. You may as well quote the traveling rule and try to argue that the defender can't move his pivot foot after obtaining LGP. Your premise just doesn't follow from quoting these two rules, you haven't quoted anything that tells you to combine them, because it's not there.

Further, you're completely ignoring the repeatedly quoted applicable rule; 4-23-4b.

This guy is a troll. In his very first post he said he was working a NCAA Division 2 basketball game.

Now he doesn't know that LGP must be obtained prior to the offensive player going airborne.

Being as he was supposedly working a D2 game my rules citation should apply to him yet he is ignoring it.

So my verdict is that he is a TROLL.

Thanks for the college rule,
d. [B]When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court.

I am not Interpreting this as an airborne shooter, for airborne shooter i will use rule 4-71

The criteria for when a shoot begins (rule 4-71-3) and as you have already posted guarding (4-35) are clear to me.

I have not done a lot of posting this summer but I have making an effort to read the threads. And I would like to thank all of the posters who have taken NoFear to task regarding his non-sensical reading of the rules regarding guarding, screening, and act-of-shooting/try. Great job guys.

MTD, Sr.

That's your problem. Stop interpreting the rule and just read the d@mned thing. When the shot begins only matters if there is a defensive foul during the interval beginning at the start of the shot and ending with the release of the shot. Determining whether it's a foul is done separately, this rule does not help in that issue; it's only purpose is to determine whether a shot should count when a foul is called.

Finally, you really should listen to the experienced officials on here. The combined officiating experience of the officials who have told you you're wrong on here exceeds the combined ages of your graduating high school class. If you don't believe us, take your ridiculous interpretation and philosophy to the local association leadership.

Finally, NoFear, you should consider this situation:

A1 gathers his dribble on the run, in the air. He lands on his left foot and jumps, landing on both feet (legal jump stop). B1 sets up between the landing spot and the basket, right before A1 changes direction and jumps directly into B1's chest (knocking both players to the floor).

Your philosophy and interp would have you calling a block on this play, and you would be the only official I've ever met who'd call it that way.

Interpreting
 

Thanks for the feedback, but there is no need to get personal just because I disagree with you.

Thank you.

This what the video is almost showing.

No, it's not. The video is a block, but not remotely for the reason you propose. And yes, the reasoning matters, otherwise one could cone up with all sorts of stupid rulings.

So i read this [B]d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court. and my problem is i do not infer airborne shooter, but you want my to infer that it does:confused:?

No disrespect to all the experienced officials on here, but after i do the math i come up with a number 2600 years:confused:.

I feel that your upset and have taken what i said as a personal attack:mad:, please don't. My intention is to always keep improving. I have been visiting this site since about 1997, but only recently started posting, as a discussion board i feel that i can express my opinions freely, if name call is the end result of difference of opinion then i will have to remember that:o.
Once again thank you all experienced officials and not so experienced ones:).

Name calling
 

Real big of you to resort to name calling.:mad:

I do less than a dozen D2 games a year probably not enough to claim D2 status:eek:, I will remove this from my profile.:(

How Do You Post That Roll Eyes Smilie Thing ???
 

What? There is absolutely, positively, no place for sarcasm on the Forum. Never has been sarcasm on the Forum. Never will be sarcasm on the Forum. Even a slight hint at sarcasm would take away from the intellectual purity of the Forum.

“Sarcasm is the language of the devil, for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it.” (Thomas Carlyle, Scottish Historian and Essayist, 1795-1881)

You shouldn't infer anything. The wording is clear and inference isn't necessary. It doesn't distinguish between a player who is shooting and one who isn't.

If you are working D2 games you should know what " the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court" means without have to infer anything.

You're assuming facts not in evidence.

It applies to any player who leaves the floor, whether he's a shooter or not. That player is then allowed to land (assuming the landing spot was not legally occupied when he left the floor, etc.)

And, when it applies to a shooter, it applies WHEN THE PLAYER LEAVES THE FLOOR, not when the player begins his try.

Since '97?!?!?! You're a vet, you should know the drill :eek:
Expressing flat out wrong "opinions" about a RULE will get you smacked around every time. If one chooses to be stubborn after being hit with rule/casebook references... you being around since '97 & all, should know that the degree of smacks always increase. And the people that generally do the smacking haven't even chimed in.
Its only because we are in the off-season that you got this much play!

Right after you made THAT comment (correct ruling but not for the right reasons) Billy was nice to you, I was nice to you, Snaqs was nice to you. You have been combining rules ever since, trying to defend your incorrect position. You know, sorta like the guy that calls travel on designated spot throw-ins :rolleyes:
Yeah, its a violation but not because of a travel.
All you had to do was eat it, learn from it & move on. If this is how you judge block/charge plays then I'm sure you very rarely reward anybody for good defense. One has gotta be there pretty quick in your ballgames :D
If I'm the coach & I see you walk in the arena, I'm telling my players "when he's on the baseline dont take any charges tonight & drive right through the defense."

*Hint-Hint* Good coaches, figure out what their dealing with & adjust their squads accordingly... they dont try to change calls or simply complain about the officiating.

Location, location, location...

You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet ...
 

Name calling? Just wait until Jurassic Referee returns from his sabbatical. You'll hear names you've never heard before. Names that drunken sailors have never heard before. Names that Bobby Knight has never heard before. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

This is ridiculous based on NoFear's logic, defense must determine the path of attacking player and position themselves prior to the ball being gathered and a the offense picking a path.

Defense can either not help on drive's ever in his games or they have ESP.

Lead didn't have a great position and got surprised -- simple as that.

We miss calls for two reasons: Out of position and lack of concentration. This one was both.

I have always liked Jim Evans's line. Yes, he is a baseball umpire, but his words apply equally to any sport:

"Surprise is the umpire's biggest enemy." Substitute "official's" for "umpire's".