Indiana v. Michigan State Clips

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rickman5

I'm still not sold number 2 is a block. What did the defender do wrong? He established legal guarding position and moved laterally to maintain it. The offensive player created the contact. Definitely shouldn't have been scored, regardless.

Laterally is with respect to the direction of the opponent, not the basket or any specific line on the floor. The offensive player took a new path making the defender lose LPG. The defender, jumped partially (obliquely) toward the opponent in an attempt to get back into his path. He didn't get there. Even if you don't consider that B1 lost LGP, his movement was still towards the opponent at the time of contact.

[OKREF]

I still haven't seen or heard anything that makes me want to count the basket. Zellers may have started initially, but after the contact he steps twice and to me regathers to shoot. Doesn't look like it is the same initial start.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Laterally is with respect to the direction of the opponent, not the basket or any specific line on the floor. .

First, I think play 2 was a block - for the same reasons others have posted. The defender did move into the offensive player.

But this statement has me puzzled, Camron. Lateral movement is in reference to the person moving...the defender can move laterally from their initial LGP without violating the rules. It has nothing to do with the movement of the offensive player.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

But this statement has me puzzled, Camron. Lateral movement is in reference to the person moving...the defender can move laterally from their initial LGP without violating the rules. It has nothing to do with the movement of the offensive player.

Lateral movement always has to do with the location of the offensive player, not any specific direction on the court or direction the defender moves from their initial spot.

If the offensive player has moved to the side of the defender, the defender can't move "laterally" relative to their initial position or the offense's prior location as that would put them moving towards the opponent. It may have been a lateral direction before the offense moved but that is no longer a lateral direction....it is towards the opponent.

If you were to imagine a curtain/wall/plane directly between the offense and defense at all times, such that it moves relative to the positions of the two players, the defender can't be moving into/towards that wall when contact occurs. They can only move along that wall (laterally) or away from that wall (obliquely away). That wall/curtain/plane can be at any angle at any given time but is always passing between the torsos of the players.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Lateral movement always has to do with the location of the offensive player, not any specific direction on the court or direction the defender moves from their initial spot.

If the offensive player has moved to the side of the defender, the defender can't move "laterally" relative to their initial position or the offense's prior location as that would put them moving towards the opponent. It may have been a lateral direction before the offense moved but that is no longer a lateral direction....it is towards the opponent.

If you were to imagine a curtain/wall/plane directly between the offense and defense at all times, such that it moves relative to the positions of the two players, the defender can't be moving into/towards that wall when contact occurs. They can only move along that wall (laterally) or away from that wall (obliquely away). That wall/curtain/plane can be at any angle at any given time but is always passing between the torsos of the players.

So you are talking about the whole "head and shoulders past the defender" type of thing? If so, I agree...

[kk13]

#3 IMO, really bad call. Why did he work out onto the court instead of going down the sideline to get a better angle? His position is HORRIBLE! Speaking of position, what the heck was the C doing? This was a good example of bad positioning. We can work with two Cs, we should never work with two Ts!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by kk13

we should never work with two Ts!

Without commenting on the call in the video, I disagree with your statement here. Depending on what the offense and defense are doing, two Ts can be helpful.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Without commenting on the call in the video, I disagree with your statement here. Depending on what the offense and defense are doing, two Ts can be helpful.

Four corner offensive would require two T's

[SAJ]

Originally Posted by kk13

#3 IMO, really bad call. Why did he work out onto the court instead of going down the sideline to get a better angle? His position is HORRIBLE! Speaking of position, what the heck was the C doing? This was a good example of bad positioning. We can work with two Cs, we should never work with two Ts!

The C was completely stacked by the players on the wing. I think even dropping low would have still left him stacked, thus his only view of the shot was to go high (not that he should be looking there). He got a good look at both players though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So you are talking about the whole "head and shoulders past the defender" type of thing? If so, I agree...

Partially, but not exactly. Even without the head and shoulders being past, there are directions that are legal and directions that are not. What directions those are depend on where the offensive player is.

If, while the defender was moving, the offensive player were able to magically and instantly stop just (pick you own very small distance) short of contact, would the defender's movement still create contact? If so, the defender's movement was not lateral or obliquely away and it should be a block. If the defender's movement would carry them by without contact or even farther way, then the movement was lateral or obliquely away and legal (assuming initial LGP was previously obtained and continuously maintained).