Dayton-Gonzaga Block/Charge plays (video x3)

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I know the rule and the mechanic, so let me re-phrase: I wonder why (without going back and watching the play again), C or T didn't have the information. Lesson (for me): Be ready to help.

There are going to be very few instances where the T is going to have a good look at where and when the secondary defender establishes his position. I don't think it is a matter of being ready or not, I think it is more a case that consistently having this info from the T means you are ignoring stuff you should be more concerned about.

In the C you can be in a better position to help on this play, but I would be willing to wager that most of the time the C does not pick up the secondary defender until the point of contact. It is more likely he is following the offensive player into the paint. Just as with the T, this isn't going to be much help since we have to know where LGP was established.

Realistically the only person who has a shot at having this info for the secondary defender is the L and that is why you don't see many of these calls changed.

Originally Posted by APG

4-23-1

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

That's nice, but why do the qualifications for establishing initial Legal Guarding Position not include this line about being in the path of an opponent?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

That's nice, but why do the qualifications for establishing initial Legal Guarding Position not include this line about being in the path of an opponent?

The rule book does this sort of thing all the time and I forgot that fact when I responded early this morning. Guarding was defined within a prior rule so the term itself doesn’t have to be explained again when the phrase legal guarding position comes up

[APG]

Originally Posted by AremRed

That's nice, but why do the qualifications for establishing initial Legal Guarding Position not include this line about being in the path of an opponent?

I'm guessing because the act of guarding is already defined, and it would just be redundant.

Originally Posted by APG

I'm guessing because the act of guarding is already defined, and it would just be redundant.

This makes me angry. It's a definition-within-a-definition. (insert Inception joke here)

[APG]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This makes me angry. It's a definition-within-a-definition. (insert Inception joke here)

I suppose, but it's not as if the definition of guarding is off in some different section of the book. It's defined in the article directly before how to get LGP is talked about. And as JetMetFan alluded to, rule books do this sort of thing all the time. Once a term has been defined, no need to go back and define or bring up the explicit meaning of a term later again in the book.

A perfect example of this is the airborne shooter...it's defined early in rule 4...but you won't see a later rule alluding to an airborne shooter and defining explicitly what it is to be an airborne shooter.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Does this matter?? I think not. In the slo-mo replay I have LGP established at 0:16 into the video. Unless you are not referencing NFHS rules here, I don't see how anything he did lost LGP. He moved obliquely to his left, did not slide under once the offensive player was airbourne, etc.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The man has a point...LGP requires two feet on the floor with the torso of the defender facing his/her opponent. Nothing about in the path.

Originally Posted by AremRed

This makes me angry. It's a definition-within-a-definition. (insert Inception joke here)

Been away with family so I'm just now chiming in on the question to me...

See what APG said.


If it were not true, a defender could get LGP without even being near an opponent.

Imagine a fast break. B1 trailing A1 is facing A1 and probably has two feet down at some point in the play. Do you think B1 has LGP from such a position? Why or why not? Can you have LGP following someone from behind?

Would you think that it is sufficient for B1 to then be able to pass A1 and jump into their path with their back to A1, perhaps not even having their feet down? Would you say this is a charge? The did previous to being in the path did have two feet town and facing A1?

That is what anyone who argues that two feet down IN the path is not required is really saying.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

What are your thoughts on this one being left to the C to handle? I know both C and new L are racing to get into position but it seems as though C has the less stressful - for lack of a better word - situation to make a call if one needed to be made. I also felt watching it live (yes, I was able to) that new L was too close to be able to see the entire play.

I see calls like that too often from all positions for it to be a matter of the lead being too close or at a bad angle. There are just officials that regularly penalize legal defenders on such plays. I've seen defenders moving directly away from shooters get called for a block where the officials have a perfect view. Some officials incorrectly require defenders to be "set"....and I've heard them use that term in explaining their call to the players, coaches, and partners.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it were not true, a defender could get LGP without even being near an opponent.

Right, but a player so far away would not be a foul threat.

I understand about being in the path. I just wish it were included in the LGP language for better clarity.

Anyway, once initial LGP is established a player can turn around and take a charge in the back.

Cam, your last quote credited me when it was JetMet's post you quoted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Right, but a player so far away would not be a foul threat.

Not necessarily. It could be a player defending someone near the corner seeing a teammate getting beat at the top of the key who races towards the key trying to rotate into a position to cover the drive. He could have easily been facing the dribbler from that position and still be able to get in front of him on the way to the basket but not get 2 feet down, facing, while in the path.

Originally Posted by AremRed

I understand about being in the path. I just wish it were included in the LGP language for better clarity.

Anyway, once initial LGP is established a player can turn around and take a charge in the back.

Agree 100%.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Cam, your last quote credited me when it was JetMet's post you quoted.

Fixed the quote attribution.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not necessarily. It could be a player defending someone near the corner seeing a teammate getting beat at the top of the key who races towards the key trying to rotate into a position to cover the drive. He could have easily been facing the dribbler from that position and still be able to get in front of him on the way to the basket but not get 2 feet down, facing, while in the path.

Ok that makes sense. I agree.

Regarding play 1, how do we define "in the path"? Is it generally in the path (example in this case being between the dribbler and his path to the basket) or specifically in the path (must be directly in front of the dribbler to establish LGP)?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Ok that makes sense. I agree.

Regarding play 1, how do we define "in the path"? Is it generally in the path (example in this case being between the dribbler and his path to the basket) or specifically in the path (must be directly in front of the dribbler to establish LGP)?

I don't believe the book actually defines "path". However, I think either one could be appropriate. Being between the opponent and the basket is always going to be sufficient to get LGP but being in front of the opponent (relative to the direction of the opponent) is also sufficient. Most of the time, both are the same.

Also, before it can even matter, the defender will have been "in front" of the dribbler relative to the dribbler's path. Otherwise, there would be no contact since the dribbler would be going a different direction.