Missouri State/Wichita State video requests

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I feel the thing I was mainly referring to (getting to the spot first) was not being addressed. People were instead bringing up other parts of the rule on legally guarding a dribbler (gaining initial LGP).

Does the rule include the word "spot"?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Does the rule include the word "spot"?

Yep...

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." - Section 23 ART. 1

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Yep...

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." - Section 23 ART. 1

Well, if you want to really break it down that with rule, how did the offense get there first? If spot is defined by the feet being down, were his feet both on the spot?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, if you want to really break it down that with rule, how did the offense get there first? If spot is defined by the feet being down, were his feet both on the spot?

Fair question, and to be honest I was only looking at the fact that the defender's feet had not gotten to the spot first. A mistake on my part.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Fair question, and to be honest I was only looking at the fact that the defender's feet had not gotten to the spot first. A mistake on my part.

But you should have a better idea if you are basically trying to convince a room full of people about the rule. A lot of people you are debating with are not rookies or inexperienced officials. And this is not the first time this kind of conversation has been had here. You need to define your position better than this if you feel we are all wrong.

The rule you are referencing is about positioning on the floor, not involving a ball handler. LGP is primarily a rule for contact with a ball handler or airborne shooter and what a player can or cannot to be legal. Even screening rules do not apply to this situation.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Yep...

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." - Section 23 ART. 1

And this rule is about a player standing on a spot and how someone cannot take their position away legally.

LGP and screening rules do not apply here.

Peace

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Yep...

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." - Section 23 ART. 1

Ah, I see. I meant the LGP rule(s) which are key when discussing block/charge. In this case the discussion on whether the defender is legal is more important. That is why everyone is responding to you using the LGP language.

As JRut pointed out, the "spot" rule refers to displacement of a player, a block/charge play is different.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But you should have a better idea if you are basically trying to convince a room full of people about the rule. A lot of people you are debating with are not rookies or inexperienced. And this is not the first time this kind of conversation has been had here. You need to define your position better than this if you feel we are all wrong. The rule you are referencing is about positioning on the floor, not involving a ball handler. LGP is primarily a rule for contact with a ball handler or airborne shooter and what a player can or cannot to be legal. Even screening rules do not apply to this situation.

Peace

Anybody can read a text book to a student, but they are not all teachers. A real teacher will take the facts presented in the text book and form them in a way in which the student understands. JAR did that by addressing the "got to the spot first" part I was hung-up on, whereas others just kept throwing various other rules such as LGP out at me.

Next time, try seeing where the person is coming from, and going from there.

[just another ref]

This is a reverse example of how the term LGP can cause confusion. Usually it involves a defender who is stationary but not facing the dribbler or running parallel to the dribbler being knocked to the floor and being called for a block. "It has to be a block. He didn't have LGP." In this case it is clear that LGP was established, but when (improperly) combined with the "first to the spot" concept, well...........

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Ah, I see. I meant the LGP rule(s) which are key when discussing block/charge. In this case the discussion on whether the defender is legal is more important. That is why everyone is responding to you using the LGP language.

As JRut pointed out, the "spot" rule refers to displacement of a player, a block/charge play is different.

My judgment of the play was that the defender did not get to the spot first, and therefore the contact (aka "displacement") was his fault. However, it was pointed out to me that the dribbler didn't necessarily get to the spot first either. Therefore, due to the defender having gained LGP earlier, and having not moved towards the dribbler, the contact is the fault of the dribbler... hence a PC foul.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But you should have a better idea if you are basically trying to convince a room full of people about the rule. A lot of people you are debating with are not rookies or inexperienced officials. And this is not the first time this kind of conversation has been had here. You need to define your position better than this if you feel we are all wrong.

The rule you are referencing is about positioning on the floor, not involving a ball handler. LGP is primarily a rule for contact with a ball handler or airborne shooter and what a player can or cannot to be legal. Even screening rules do not apply to this situation.

Peace

BTW, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm a fifth year official, who has much to learn (I've actually been told that you never stop learning). I'm sharing my understanding of a rule, which not only tries to help others but gives me the chance to learn as well when others respond.

If the responses I get are not helping me to understand why I'm wrong, then I'm going to continue pressing. If I didn't do that, then I'd be citing a website when explaining a call, rather than citing the rules and how they are properly applied to a situation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

BTW, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm a fifth year official, who has much to learn (I've actually been told that you never stop learning). I'm sharing my understanding of a rule, which not only tries to help others but gives me the chance to learn as well when others respond.

If the responses I get are not helping me to understand why I'm wrong, then I'm going to continue pressing. If I didn't do that, then I'd be citing a website when explaining a call, rather than citing the rules and how they are properly applied to a situation.

Perhaps these two Case plays will help your understanding. They both clearly demonstrate that a defender does not have to have both feet on the court at the time of contact (in fact, a defender could even jump vertically and still draw a charge while not touching the court at all).

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)

4.23.3 SITUATION B:

A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when A1 contacts B1 in the torso.

RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps these two Case plays will help your understanding. They both clearly demonstrate that a defender does not have to have both feet on the court at the time of contact (in fact, a defender could even jump vertically and still draw a charge while not touching the court at all).

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)

4.23.3 SITUATION B:

A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when A1 contacts B1 in the torso.

RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

It does help... thanks. I was simply hung-up on the part about a player needing to get to the spot first.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

BTW, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm a fifth year official, who has much to learn (I've actually been told that you never stop learning). I'm sharing my understanding of a rule, which not only tries to help others but gives me the chance to learn as well when others respond.

You told me something I already knew or could tell. And the reason is you are confusing rules situation with each other. LGP is all about what a defender can do to be in the way of a ball handler. Not associated with the "spot" reference you are speaking on.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If the responses I get are not helping me to understand why I'm wrong, then I'm going to continue pressing. If I didn't do that, then I'd be citing a website when explaining a call, rather than citing the rules and how they are properly applied to a situation.

I cannot speak for why you do not understand something. That might have to do with training, inexperience or reading too much into the rules. Maybe no one has sat you down with video or other training materials, I have no idea. You are only wrong in your reference that the defender that is backing up did not get to a spot. That does not make any since if you ask me. And people have cited you the rule by talking about LGP. If you need the exact location that is a problem too considering that this is in the definitions and I would think someone even with your experience level would know where to easily find that definition.

Since you have no idea, you need to read over Rule 4-23. It even talks about the differences between a player with the ball and a player without the ball and what is allowed when contact occurs.

Peace

[Rich1]

I'm sure my judgement will be harshly criticized (a trend lately in many posts) but I don't have a problem with all three being called blocks. Without the benefit of slow motion the calling official may seen the shooter collect the ball and then the defender slide over so it looked more like a block. In high school I would be morelikely to call this a charge but in ncaa I see all three as 50/50 in real time.

Also, I always try to remember what we see from our angle on the floor is completely different than what the bench, the bleachers, the replay, and even the crew see from theirs. Just because I may see something differently than what was called or what others see in reviewing the tape doesn't necessarily mean I am a better (or worse) official than the next guy.

And, as long as I'm in preach mode, experience doesn't always equal competence so all questions, comments, and opinions should be welcomed in our professional discussions on the forum.