Rsbq

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It does not matter whether or not H1 attemtped to stand upright within his CV, H2's contact prevented him from doing so.

MTD, Sr.

I disagree, B1 can't prevent an opponent from doing something he isn't attempting to do. Nothing you can do or say right now is going to prevent me from going to Ohio this weekend; because I'm not trying.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I just don't like (personal issue perhaps) the implication that RSBQ and SDF are somehow different concepts.

Gotcha.

I see it as the same concept applied to different situations but realize that, for whatever reason, not everybody sees it that way.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, maybe I'm seeing this differently than you, but if A1 isn't affected in the slightest, I don't see the point of calling a foul.

Quality, meaningful whistles... I Love It! We dont like GI Joe

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sorry, but these are all just different ways of saying "advantage/disadvantage," which is just another way of wording 4-27-3.

Snaqs, you're exactly right, just another way of wording 4-27-3.
But the principles, if followed correctly, gives us a reference to make the correct call in different situations/areas on the court.
The guidelines are just that, guidelines.
Sometimes guidelines can be quite vague, the principles are more defined.
JMO

Originally Posted by rockyroad

...if he made no effort to straighten up, then B1 did not prevent him from standing upright within his "Cylinder of Verticality".

Sorta like the football official who calls an offensive hold, but the defender is standing right there allowing himself to be held.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Gotcha.

I see it as the same concept applied to different situations but realize that, for whatever reason, not everybody sees it that way.

Give it another 2-5 seasons & they'll buy in! Especially once we get the RA in HS.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Gotcha.

I see it as the same concept applied to different situations but realize that, for whatever reason, not everybody sees it that way.

Agreed, but using the terms in contrast with one another leads to the perception that they're somehow fundamentally different. I'm probably being overly persnickety, though.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Once again, the key is H1 was prevented from standing upright within his Cylinder of Verticality

You're assuming H1 wanted to / tried to stand upright during the time V2's hands were on H1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Especially once we get the RA in HS.

Heaven forbid....

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Heaven forbid....

Its hard enough to get people to call a PC foul around here. We don't need to give them another out.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It does not matter whether or not H1 attemtped to stand upright within his CV, H2's contact prevented him from doing so.

MTD, Sr.

How can one be "prevented" from doing something that one isn't even trying to do??? That makes no sense and is a ridiculous statement.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Heaven forbid....

Oh my, you dont like that either? Snaqs it's really a beautiful thing!
Just like RSBQ & SDF, the RA takes the art out of our thought process & makes it more of a science.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Oh my, you dont like that either? Snaqs it's really a beautiful thing!
Just like RSBQ & SDF, the RA takes the art out of our though process & makes it more of a science.

I disagree. The criteria for this are pretty clear. While there's an art to officiating, that applies more to game management and when to make certain calls (like letting a few travels go to benefit a team losing by 50). It doesn't apply to B/C calls. That's about knowing how to identify LGP.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It doesn't apply to B/C calls. That's about knowing how to identify LGP.

I respect your stance, but when a 2ndary defenders foot is in the RA there is no need to know LGP. Thats beautiful, IMHO!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

I respect your stance, but when a 2ndary defenders foot is in the RA there is no need to know LGP. Thats beautiful, IMHO!

It might make it easier in this instance, but I don't like the idea of taking away this defensive tactic. I know some (you included) think it's not a legitimate tactic, but I think it's a fair strategy to take away the shooter's path to force him to take a different shot than he wants.

Besides, then you have to learn to identify secondary vs primary defenders as well as other aspects of the rule that determine whether it applies.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I know some (you included) think it's not a legitimate tactic, but I think it's a fair strategy to take away the shooter's path to force him to take a different shot than he wants.

Besides, then you have to learn to identify secondary vs primary defenders as well as other aspects of the rule that determine whether it applies.

I'd go to say that most don't feel like it's a legitimate tactic...at least in the eyes of the rules makers. NFHS is the only major level not to have an RA now (NBA, NCAA, and FIBA).

And we kind of already should know the difference between primary and secondary defenders...especially on block/charge plays to the basic and working in 3-man mechanics.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I'd go to say that most don't feel like it's a legitimate tactic...at least in the eyes of the rules makers. NFHS is the only major level not to have an RA now (NBA, NCAA, and FIBA).

And we kind of already should know the difference between primary and secondary defenders...especially on block/charge plays to the basic and working in 3-man mechanics.

The stated reason NCAAW adopted the RA was NOT "because it's not a valid defensive tactic" but "to increase scoring". So, I'd say they thought it was "too good" of a defensive tactic.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The stated reason NCAAW adopted the RA was NOT "because it's not a valid defensive tactic" but "to increase scoring". So, I'd say they thought it was "too good" of a defensive tactic.

Well I stand corrected with regard to NCAA-W. At every other level, I've read/heard that either formally or informally, many felt that standing right near the basket wasn't "legitimate" defense...and why part of the rule states that defenders are allowed to jump up, in an attempt to block the ball, whilst in the RA since that is seen as playing "legitimate" defense.