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.