Belmont-UNC: Block/Push/No-call (video)

[Adam]

Even if LGP is required, he certainly does have it.

Two feet down, facing his opponent. Moving backwards and laterally the whole time, thus never losing LGP.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

Even if LGP is required, he certainly does have it.

Two feet down, facing his opponent. Moving backwards and laterally the whole time, thus never losing LGP.

I'm not sure that's how I see it, but if I were an observer I wouldn't make a big deal about it either way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm not sure that's how I see it, but if I were an observer I wouldn't make a big deal about it either way.

Curiously, which part do you think he's missing?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

Curiously, which part do you think he's missing?

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

Sorry, I was wondering how he lost LGP, or never gained it. Which requirement was missing?

As for him moving backwards, he's not required to maintain any speed. He can stop at any moment and if he gets knocked down, it's on the opponent.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

I have a feeling you're going to be pretty alone on this one. This has to be a foul of some sort, especially under the new guidelines. There was enough contact there for a foul on UNC.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. [I]If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly,[/I] the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

This may be difficult to codify . . .

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

As I said again, screening rules apply. It is always the responsible of the person that is being screened when the screener is moving in the same direction of the person being screened. So you cannot call a foul by rule on a retreating player that basically is setting a screen. And that player setting a screen never stopped or moved towards the opponent to cause contact. So time and distance really do not apply here.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As I said again, screening rules apply. It is always the responsible of the person that is being screened when the screener is moving in the same direction of the person being screened. So you cannot call a foul by rule on a retreating player that basically is setting a screen. And that player setting a screen never stopped or moved towards the opponent to cause contact. So time and distance really do not apply here.

Peace

This is not a a screen. Don't confuse the situation. This is a guarding situation. The rules are similar and the result is largely the same but it isnt' a screen.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As I said again, screening rules apply. It is always the responsible of the person that is being screened when the screener is moving in the same direction of the person being screened. So you cannot call a foul by rule on a retreating player that basically is setting a screen. And that player setting a screen never stopped or moved towards the opponent to cause contact. So time and distance really do not apply here.

Peace

Yeah, same as Camron. The Belmont player was the defender so LGP rules do apply.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

As to whether he obtained LGP, the answer is yes. The UNC player had two strides – at least – to be able to avoid the contact and didn’t.

By the way how does one move “backwards and laterally correctly?” The defender had established LGP and never moved forward into the offensive player. Given those two elements what did he do wrong that could have caused him to possibly be blamed for the contact? There’s no requirement for a push/TC foul that a player lower his shoulder, etc. and there’s also no requirement that the defender stand like a statue and get RTFO. You may opt not to blow in the situation – and I would disagree – but if there’s a call in this case it really has to go against the offense.

[BryanV21]

My understanding of the rule is that the defender must move in the same direction and at the same speed as the offensive player. The defensive player clearly moves sideways and at a slower pace than the offensive player.

To say it another way, should the offensive player move laterally slower? Is the fact that he's moving quicker than the defender his fault?

Both the offensive and defensive player have the right to move to that spot on the floor. And you can't tell me the defender wasn't moving sideways on that play. In fact, he almost seems to "belly up" the offensive player, thus creating the initial contact.

If the offensive player was running straight at the defender, that's another story, but in this case there was lateral movement.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

Every player is entitled to their spot on the floor, provided he/she got there legally. There is no required speed that a player has to be moving backwards or laterally. So to say that you are not sure who to blame for this contact is to ignore a basic principle of basketball officiating.

And as far as the screening comments made earlier, Camron is correct. This is not a screening situation, it is a guarding situation. Offensive players do not get to run over legal defenders.

[j51969]

Watching this in real time I can see this call going either way. When the play is slowed down: Seems as if the defensive player was anticipating the contact and started to fall prior to.