Dayton-Gonzaga Block/Charge plays (video x3)

NFHS:

Play 1: Charge
Play 2: No call
Play 3: Can't tell from this angle, not a block due to RA though.

Note on play 3: The defender established LGP outside the arc, but when the defenders foot came down it looks like it clipped the line. That's probably what the lead saw.

Question on play 1: if there is a travel, isn't this Trails call to make? I don't see how the Lead could have located the pivot foot while refereeing the defense.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Note on play 3: The defender established LGP outside the arc, but when the defenders foot came down it looks like it clipped the line. That's probably what the lead saw.

As was mentioned earlier, the rule is a player can't establish LGP in the RA. If B1 establishes outside then backs up and maintains LGP, B1 can still draw a charge.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Both players were in the wrong. B could be called for a block but A dipped his shoulder and could have gotten the PC too. It is as 50/50 as it gets. Since the shoulder dip was the most obvious part of the play I'd lean toward a PC but the contact was not worthy of a foul when a travel was there.

Um...okay. But what happened first?

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

As was mentioned earlier, the rule is a player can't establish LGP in the RA. If B1 establishes outside then backs up and maintains LGP, B1 can still draw a charge.

Right, I am not disagreeing. He was outside the RA when he established position, which leads me to question why the Lead pointed at the RA. You can see the defender on his tiptoes at one point (1:17), and when his feet came back down his heel was on the line (barely seen right before the time changes to 1:18)....the lead probably saw that and assumed LGP was not established outside the RA.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#1. Defender never had two feet on the floor in the path and facing the opponent, therefore he never had LGP. Not having LGP, he would not be permitted to be moving at the time of contact. Therefore, it is a block.

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Does this matter?? I think not.

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.

[APG]

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.

The very act of guarding requires the opponent to legally place himself in the path of the offensive player.

4-23-1

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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by APG

The very act of guarding requires the opponent to legally place himself in the path of the offensive player.

4-23-1

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

One of these mornings when I'm awake I'll remember to go back far enough into Rule 4

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Question on play 1: if there is a travel, isn't this Trails call to make? I don't see how the Lead could have located the pivot foot while refereeing the defense.

Possibly but the T wouldn't be able to see when A1's dribble ended since A1's back was to him.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#2. Weak call. If there was a call, the defender was in the path with 2 feet on the floor and facing the opponent. The shooter was not in the upward motion (the official would have awarded two shots if so) so the defender had LGP. The defender was legally moving directly away from the dribbler. A block would not be possible. Furthermore, the only contact was with the dribbler's forearm. Not sure you can even commit a block against the opponent's arm. All that said, I don't think it was a charge or PC either. Should have been a no call.

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.

[scrounge]

I can see how #3 can be called a block, not because of being in the RA, but because the defender slid to the right after the shooter began his upward motion. If the lead saw that motion coming into the path after the shot began, given the emphasis this year, I can understand the block call.

[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.