Vid request missouri at nc state

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have a block on this one. I don't think the defender had LGP.

I'm not disagreeing but would like to her your explanation. Thank you in advance.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I'm not disagreeing but would like to her your explanation. Thank you in advance.

What I saw was B1 get 2 down after A1 started going a different direction. B1 tried to hedge high and A1 instead went down the lane line.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I'm not disagreeing but would like to her your explanation. Thank you in advance.

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

[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.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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

No, and he is moving into A1 at the time of contact.