Vid request missouri at nc state

[Blindolbat]

I'll be the one and only maybe here to say this, but I've got a charge there.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The only reason I would step away while signalling is if I had a charge. If I had a block I would move towards the collision while signalling. What's the best way?

Stand still. Unless it's a long distance call and you need to close in.

Many though start for the table right away.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Had LGP but lost it when A1 drove down the lane instead of directly toward the basket.

Once again not disputing just trying to understand.
Why does he lose it? He had both feet own facing opponent. Opponent didn't get head and shoulders past so it seems to me it could have been a charge.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Unless it's a long distance call and you need to close in.

Is this a long-distance call?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Is this a long-distance call?

No.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Once again not disputing just trying to understand.
Why does he lose it? He had both feet own facing opponent. Opponent didn't get head and shoulders past so it seems to me it could have been a charge.

At the time the shooter was about the FT line extended the defender was to the side of the shooter...not in the path. The defender needed to reestablish LGP by getting two feet down while in the path again. He didn't do that. No element of his previously obtained LGP apply since he had lost it. All elements need to be obtained again.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

At the time the shooter was about the FT line extended the defender was to the side of the shooter...not in the path. The defender needed to reestablish LGP by getting two feet down while in the path again. He didn't do that. No element of his previously obtained LGP apply since he had lost it. All elements need to be obtained again.

That makes sense. Doesn't the defender have two feet down in the path right before the contact occurs?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

That makes sense. Doesn't the defender have two feet down in the path right before the contact occurs?

Not in my opinion.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

That makes sense. Doesn't the defender have two feet down in the path right before the contact occurs?

ART. 2

To obtain an initial legal guarding position:

a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.

b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

ART. 2

To obtain an initial legal guarding position:

a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.

b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.

Seems to me, these were met. I'm struggling with those who claim the defender must somehow be "in the path" as defined by the direction he's heading (a concept that is not so defined in the rules).

First, I'm not convinced the "in the path" wording of 4-23-1 applies to establishing LGP as spelled out in 4-23-2. 4-23-2 says nothing about the path.

Second, "the path" is not defined, and I have a hard time defining so narrowly as to exclude the space between the dribbler and his basket just because he happens to be heading in a slightly altered direction.

Based on this interpretation, I think it may be hard to justify a closely guarded count when the dribbler is moving away from the defender.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Seems to me, these were met. I'm struggling with those who claim the defender must somehow be "in the path" as defined by the direction he's heading (a concept that is not so defined in the rules).

First, I'm not convinced the "in the path" wording of 4-23-1 applies to establishing LGP as spelled out in 4-23-2. 4-23-2 says nothing about the path.

Second, "the path" is not defined, and I have a hard time defining so narrowly as to exclude the space between the dribbler and his basket just because he happens to be heading in a slightly altered direction.

Based on this interpretation, I think it may be hard to justify a closely guarded count when the dribbler is moving away from the defender.

I think this case play deals with this play.

10.6.9 SITUATION:

Dribbler A1 has established a straight-line path toward a certain area of the court. Can A1 maintain this specific path?

RULING: Only to the extent that no opponent who is behind or to the side can crowd A1 out of this path. Opponents may attempt to obtain a legal guarding position in A1's path at any time. To obtain an initial legal guarding position, both feet of the guard must be on the court and the guard must be facing the dribbler prior to contact. Time and distance are not factors in obtaining an initial guarding position on an opponent with the ball. Once legal position is obtained, the guard can move to maintain position in the dribbler's path. The requirement of having two feet on the court does not apply in maintaining a legal guarding position, provided the guard maintains in-bound status. (4-23)

Doesn't the play in the video look like the description given here. It doesn't say anything about having to start out in the path.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I think this case play deals with this play.

10.6.9 SITUATION:

Dribbler A1 has established a straight-line path toward a certain area of the court. Can A1 maintain this specific path?

RULING: Only to the extent that no opponent who is behind or to the side can crowd A1 out of this path. Opponents may attempt to obtain a legal guarding position in A1's path at any time. To obtain an initial legal guarding position, both feet of the guard must be on the court and the guard must be facing the dribbler prior to contact. Time and distance are not factors in obtaining an initial guarding position on an opponent with the ball. Once legal position is obtained, the guard can move to maintain position in the dribbler's path. The requirement of having two feet on the court does not apply in maintaining a legal guarding position, provided the guard maintains in-bound status. (4-23)

Doesn't the play in the video look like the description given here. It doesn't say anything about having to start out in the path.

Good cite. That refers, more than once, to in the path being part of obtaining AND maintaining LGP.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Good cite. That refers, more than once, to in the path being part of obtaining AND maintaining LGP.

I read it slightly different. It says you can get in the path, once LGP has occured. However, LGP says nothing about being in the path.

The definition of "guarding" does talk about the path.

ART. 1

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without *illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

[Adam]

To me, it says you "may" attempt to get into LGP in the path at anytime.
The "must" section says nothing about being in the path, and nowhere does it define "in the path" anyway.

[JugglingReferee]

Travel on the initial dribble.

Travel on the drive. If I'm going with a block, I don't count the basket, but award two shots. If a close call like this went a PC at an earlier time in the game, they had better have a PC again. If this was called a PC, I'm not sure I would bring it up if I was evaluating.