Marq/Syracuse Video please (Video Added)

[justacoach]

11:25 2nd half

block/charge on layup

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by justacoach

11:25 2nd half

block/charge on layup

[JeffM]

I have a block - defender was not in LGP soon enough

[JRutledge]

It looks to me he gets both feet on the floor before the shooter goes airborne. I have a charge. I even thought this was a charge when I saw this play live.

Peace

[OKREF]

PC. I also thought PC live.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JeffM

I have a block - defender was not in LGP soon enough

What does soon enough mean to you?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It looks to me he gets both feet on the floor before the shooter goes airborne. I have a charge. I even thought this was a charge when I saw this play live.

Peace

Agree.

[JeffM]

I suppose I'm wrong, but to me, the Marquette player's momentum moves towards the baseline once the Syracuse player is airborne because the Marquette player wasn't there soon enough.

I don't think the Marquette player got there soon enough for the Syracuse player to avoid contact. I also don't think the Marquette player got there soon enough to defend the shot had he actually jumped. Since time and distance aren't required to establish LGP against an opponent with the ball, I suppose these considerations don't matter.

[JRutledge]

The rule only requires that the defender have feet on the floor before the player goes airborne. I can see what you are saying, but momentum has nothing to do with the actual rule. Now if you are suggesting the defender "leaned over" then that case is a different factor, but it appears he got his feet there first. I will say it was close, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender when he is trying to make an effort to get in the way.

Peace

[justacoach]

Appears the L, in transition, didn't pick up the secondary defender. Watch his eyes....seems surprised to see 2nd defender.

PC, but close

[twocentsworth]

I'm not surprised Randy McCall got this call wrong.....I was SHOCKED to see him working on the second weekend of the tourney. His performance in the UL v Colorado St game was poor, imho......

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule only requires that the defender have feet on the floor before the player goes airborne.

Rule citation, please....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Rule citation, please....

4-35-4

Art. 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. (Exception: Rule 4-35.7)

Peace

[just another ref]

PC foul

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule only requires that the defender have feet on the floor before the player goes airborne. I can see what you are saying, but momentum has nothing to do with the actual rule. Now if you are suggesting the defender "leaned over" then that case is a different factor, but it appears he got his feet there first. I will say it was close, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender when he is trying to make an effort to get in the way.

Peace

Originally Posted by justacoach

Rule citation, please....

It does also require they they have their torso in their path with the feet down from the basic definition of guarding. If they're jumping into position and their body comes into the path after the feet land (which is often the case), they don't have LGP until the body is in the path.

In this case, I think the body was in the path in time, even if it was still shifting.