As Reqested From Fiasco

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The question is not whether his foot was moving, it is whether his body was moving.

Actually it's his feet...

NCAA 4-35-4
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 legal 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 guarding position before the opponent left the playing court.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Actually it's his feet...

NCAA 4-35-4
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 legal 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 guarding position before the opponent left the playing court.

Actually, it is not.

Read the rest of the rule. Two feet on the court is a momentary requirement, not a static requirement. Once two feet were down with the defender in the path (they were down long before the final position was achieve and well before the contact), they no longer have to be on the floor. The foul was because the defender was moving forward after they could no longer legally do so.

[JRutledge]

I also body seem to only be a factor if the player is not vertical towards the ball handler. In other words leaning toward the ball handler in a way that it does not allow the space of the opponent.

Peace

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also body seem to only be a factor if the player is not vertical towards the ball handler. In other words leaning toward the ball handler in a way that it does not allow the space of the opponent.

Peace

Please note:English is the preferred language on this board!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by wfd21

Ibelieve this is Teddy's call. The drive originated from his primary and he stayed with it. I also think it was the right call.

It came from his primary but the contact was on a secondary defender, thus I believe the L needs to have a whistle here.

This is a good video to discuss mechanics.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I beg to differ.

His right foot was down but his left foot was still moving into position as the shooter went airborne. Also, he couldn't have attained LGP until he was out of the RA since he was a secondary defender so the position of his feet on his final two steps matters even more.

After watching the video a few times in full screen, that's how I'm seeing it as well. If this is Fed, I think perhaps the lack of an RA would give him initial LGP but I still had him moving forward as the shooter went up. At any rate, a good call I think.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Based on the training I've been getting I know I would have stepped down initially.

Thanks for that tidbit.

rocky, one comment you made about pinching the paint. Isn't the L doing just that or am I misunderstanding some how?

[Rich]

I see what APG is saying, but wouldn't the *best* outcome here be the L rotating over as soon as the player put the ball on the floor? He seemed to have more than enough time to do so.

And if the L didn't rotate, wouldn't this be the perfect time to pinch the paint a bit more since the drive came from the other side?

(I know that if I see my C step out like that to cover this as a "T", I'm coming across to make him the actual T. Someone tell me why that wouldn't be the right reaction by the L. Seems to me that the T, because of the matchup, is initiating a rotation -- I have no problem with that, but as an L, I have to get over there.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I see what APG is saying, but wouldn't the *best* outcome here be the L rotating over as soon as the player put the ball on the floor? He seemed to have more than enough time to do so.

And if the L didn't rotate, wouldn't this be the perfect time to pinch the paint a bit more since the drive came from the other side?

(I know that if I see my C step out like that to cover this as a "T", I'm coming across to make him the actual T. Someone tell me why that wouldn't be the right reaction by the L. Seems to me that the T, because of the matchup, is initiating a rotation -- I have no problem with that, but as an L, I have to get over there.)

I agree about the Lead. He has to notice that Teddy went high on A1's catch and he should have come over with a very accelerated pace. He would have gotten there in time to have a perfect look at B2 before the crash.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

rocky, one comment you made about pinching the paint. Isn't the L doing just that or am I misunderstanding some how?

To me, he's closed down, but not pinching the paint. That's my understanding, anyway.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

To me, he's closed down, but not pinching the paint. That's my understanding, anyway.

Either closed down or pinching, the Lead still would have been straight-lined and not be able to see the contact between A1 and B2.

The crew just didn't put itself in a good position to ref this play.

I have a supervisor who really preaches hard about the C stepping down on this play in particular.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

To me, he's closed down, but not pinching the paint. That's my understanding, anyway.

OK, I guess I am misunderstanding then. How would pinching the paint look compared to this?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, it is not.

Read the rest of the rule. Two feet on the court is a momentary requirement, not a static requirement. Once two feet were down with the defender in the path (they were down long before the final position was achieve and well before the contact), they no longer have to be on the floor. The foul was because the defender was moving forward after they could no longer legally do so.

I beg to differ.

His right foot was down but his left foot was still moving into position as the shooter went airborne. Also, he couldn't have attained LGP until he was out of the RA since he was a secondary defender so the position of his feet on his final two steps matters even more.

In terms of his body, he satified part B of the rule since his torso was facing A1 as he tried to establish. It's parts A and D where he missed.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I beg to differ.

His right foot was down but his left foot was still moving into position as the shooter went airborne. Also, he couldn't have attained LGP until he was out of the RA since he was a secondary defender so the position of his feet on his final two steps matters even more.

In terms of his body, he satified part B of the rule since his torso was facing A1 as he tried to establish. It's parts A and D where he missed.

Agreed, initially thought PC but after 8-9 plays and stop action.......good call IMO. Still moving over as shooter alights

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Agreed, initially thought PC but after 8-9 plays and stop action.......good call IMO. Still moving over as shooter alights

If it's close enough that I have to go to that much trouble to see it was a block, I'd like to think I'd go PC.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If it's close enough that I have to go to that much trouble to see it was a block, I'd like to think I'd go PC.

A valid point.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I beg to differ.

His right foot was down but his left foot was still moving into position as the shooter went airborne.

The last time his left foot touched, perhaps....but it was down 1-2 times before that. He was in the path and had both feet down several times before he reached his final position....but he was moving forward after the shooter was airborne.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Also, he couldn't have attained LGP until he was out of the RA since he was a secondary defender so the position of his feet on his final two steps matters even more.

Even you agree since you're mentioning his final two steps....the previous steps satisfied the two-feet on the court provision.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

In terms of his body, he satified part B of the rule since his torso was facing A1 as he tried to establish. It's parts A and D where he missed.

And a player can have LGP in the RA. Until the play develops, you can't conclude he is a secondary defender. If the dribbler/driver stops, pivots and then collides, he has become a primary defender and the position is legal. If the driver/dribbler continues in one motion, the position is not legal.