Dayton-Gonzaga Block/Charge plays (video x3)

[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.

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)