Dayton-Gonzaga Block/Charge plays (video x3)

[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)

[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.

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.