Call on the court = Block. Your opinion?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Oh okay, no need for me to go back if you have initial LGP just prior to contact. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense here.

You consider the extended leg to be the trail, I have the forward leg being the extended leg since that is the direction she is attempting to go.

No biggie, tough play, tough call!

Ah, I saw her left leg as extended. Either way, the contact is in the torso, not the leg, so I consider it irrelevant. You're right, though, not a huge deal as it's very close and as a partner, I could easily back either call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ah, I saw her left leg as extended. Either way, the contact is in the torso, not the leg, so I consider it irrelevant. You're right, though, not a huge deal as it's very close and as a partner, I could easily back either call.

Totally agree.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Totally agree.

Peace

I wasnt saying the contact was in the leg, simply using the leg slide as a guideline for obtaining LGP. I never saw 2 feet on the wood, in the path of the offense prior to contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

I wasnt saying the contact was in the leg, simply using the leg slide as a guideline for obtaining LGP. I never saw 2 feet on the wood, in the path of the offense prior to contact.

I did not suggest that is what you were saying. I just think many take the wideness of the legs as a reason to make a call against the defender or suggest that the player was not in LGP. I was much more agreeing with the quoted comments because others have used the wideness of the legs as the reason.

Now to say you never saw both feet on the wood, not sure what you saw on the video. The player slide over go get in the way. They did not hop over there on one leg. The issue for me is did the player maintain LGP more than if they ever had LGP initially They did face the opponent before they got there as well.

Peace