More Block/PC plays from CA...3 of them

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Oops. Correct.

Don't lose sleep over this. It was real, real, close.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The defender has to obtain LGP before his opponent leaves the floor. I'd post a freeze if I could - I'm at work - but B1 does meet the requirement in this case. A1 was almost airborne but according to the rule almost isn't good enough.

A freeze frame will not help you...it will not show what you need to see.

There are a two reasons he doesn't have LGP but the only one you really need to consider is that B1 was moving towards the shooter all the way until the time of contact....well after A1 left the floor. That alone makes it a block.

You could see that if you get two freeze shots. If you freeze it at the time the shooter leaves the floor and then another freeze at the time of contact, you'll see that the defender has moved toward A1 in that interval (as was still moving). Just because the feet are still doesn't mean the defender isn't moving.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A freeze frame will not help you...it will not show what you need to see.

There are a two reasons he doesn't have LGP but the only one you really need to consider is that B1 was moving towards the shooter all the way until the time of contact....well after A1 left the floor. That alone makes it a block.

You could see that if you get two freeze shots. If you freeze it at the time the shooter leaves the floor and then another freeze at the time of contact, you'll see that the defender has moved toward A1 in that interval (as was still moving). Just because the feet are still doesn't mean the defender isn't moving.

That's where we're going to differ and that's why I referred to the defender being a statue. His upper body is going to be moving towards the shooter just as a matter of physics because his body is slowing down. If he doesn't break what would be his normal vertical plane then he hasn't done anything wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

That's where we're going to differ and that's why I referred to the defender being a statue. His upper body is going to be moving towards the shooter just as a matter of physics because his body is slowing down. If he doesn't break what would be his normal vertical plane then he hasn't done anything wrong.

That is precisely why it is illegal.

4-23-3:
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs

The rules of guarding require that he get there in time to NOT be moving towards the shooter.

He doesn't get verticality until he is vertical. Moving into a vertical position after the shooter is airborne is NOT verticality..

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

I agree with those who think we're asking too much of the defender if we're calling this a block.

I agree with you who agree with those.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

IMO those of you saying block on play #1 are asking way too much of the defender.

I don't think it's asking too much of the defender to not move into the offensive player, airborne or not. He was *almost* there....but just not quite. I say block.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I agree with you who agree with those.

Do you agree with those, or just Rich?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by maven

Do you agree with those, or just Rich?

Can't we apply some transitive property here?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by maven

Do you agree with those, or just Rich?

I feel a logic lesson coming on.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I feel a logic lesson coming on.

A really tedious one, at that.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Rich

A really tedious one, at that.

Hey, who tossed the word 'transitive' in like a grenade?

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is precisely why it is illegal.

4-23-3:
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs

The rules of guarding require that he get there in time to NOT be moving towards the shooter.

He doesn't get verticality until he is vertical. Moving into a vertical position after the shooter is airborne is NOT verticality..

Players (and usually coaches) NEVER seem to understand this when the explanation is given.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by maven

Hey, who tossed the word 'transitive' in like a grenade?

At least they didn't go commutative.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

1) Block
2) Tough angle here. I'm going to say no call--looks to me like the contact was just glancing based on the angle of the offensive player.
3) Easy PC.

My thoughts exactly. I have no problem with a no call in play 1, although clearly both officials follow the ball. It appears that defender is still moving after shooter goes airborne.

2. I think an easy, and thus correct, no call.

3. Easy Offensive call.

[Red_Killian]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is precisely why it is illegal.

4-23-3:
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs

The rules of guarding require that he get there in time to NOT be moving towards the shooter.

He doesn't get verticality until he is vertical. Moving into a vertical position after the shooter is airborne is NOT verticality..

Camron nails it for #1, I agree with block, no call, PC.