Pot Shots ...
 

In my high school game, I will probably decide that she is in the act of shooting, but I'll be prepared to take some polite grief from the opposing coach. This is almost one of those almost in the act of shooting situations, and when confronted with such situations, I tend to err on the side of shooting.

I Didn't Know That There Was Going To Be Math On The Forum Today ...
 

Two of these are three dimensional objects, while one is a two dimensional object. Using all three in the same argument can lead to a lot of mathematically challenging questions. Let's try to stick to the same "dimension".

Also, where does it say that the cylinder is defined by the feet? I would think that the torso looks more like a cylinder than two feet look like a cylinder. Again we have a problem with dimensions. The base of a cylinder is a plane and it takes three points to define a plane. Unless a player has a third foot, or a tail, I would think that the base of that cylinder is best described by the dimensions (radius) of the torso.

Block.
Shouldn't be a double whistle.
Center should be able to (and apparently does, in this case) be fully aware of, anticipate, and officiate both the screening play and the secondary defender coming over.
My guess is Lead's ball-watching and too invested in the play, leading to that quick whistle out of his primary.

Thanks for posting. Nice discussion play.

Also, haven't been on in a while, come back, skip to last page of this thread, see this: = awesome.

Because?

Yeah, went back and forth, but I just don't think I'd be able to see that PC to too many people that matter, so typed what my initial reaction was before watching slow motion a few times. "She's moving toward the offensive player at the time of contact. By rule, that's a blocking foul." I know the blue part is being debated here, but that's what I'd say.

I'll say it again: If we're going to hold defenders to a standard that they're not permitted to bring themselves upright after obtaining LGP in a crash situation like this we're not following the rules (of verticality, specifically).

For this play I'm still trying to figure out what illegal movement is taking place. The defender gets her feet down with her torso facing the BH/dribbler, takes the contact in the torso after her vertical space is violated and the foul is supposed to be on her?

1. She wasn't set
2. She hopped into position
3. She was moving laterally
4. She was moving

I think that covers it all ;)

It isn't a matter of bringing themselves upright from a crouched position as in the the case many are describing (which I'm OK with and actually call the way you're advocating).

In this play, she was still arriving into position. At no time did her forward movement stop before contact. For a defender to even have LGP and the right to verticality, they have to stop moving forward. I've quoted the rule and it is a pretty simple rule....move forward, you lose LGP. This just isn't a verticality situation.

Since she was still moving forward into the space, it wasn't yet her space. If she had stopped....then straightened up, it would have been a charge, but she never stopped.

EDIT: I just watched your super slo-mo and it confirms that she never stopped moving forward. She was slowing down, but her position in each and every frame was forward of the previous frame....thus, no LGP. In real time, some might call it a PC and it might be acceptable to have that called a PC given how close it was, but the video doesn't lie. It only says it was close to being a PC, but not quite. Some might call that splitting hairs, but no matter where you draw the line, there is a decision to be made. You can't avoid it with two players moving towards each other.

Are you saying she is moving toward the offensive player? I only see her moving laterally, which she is allowed to do. I see her feet get to the spot and then she straitens up and contact occurs.

...and then both her feet hit the floor prior to contact from the BH/dribbler, meaning for that moment she has LGP and then verticality takes over. She was not out of her vertical plane when contact took place. If you pause the slo-mo at the moment of contact the defender's feet/knees are slightly ahead of her torso, not even or behind. How would she be creating contact?


Sure, make trouble why don't you? ;)

I've got a PC at full speed, slo-mo, paused, frame by frame, or any other speed.

Yes. Her position (in the super slo-mo) starts 2-3 feet closer the the basket than she ends up. She started from a position 2-3 feet below the level of letters in the lane and 2-3 feet outside of the lane and ended up on the upper portion the letters in the lane. The line on which she moves is almost directly at the point where she meets the opponent (towards the opponent).

Below is a screen grab of the key moments...
1. At the start of her move to get into the path
2. Just before contact
3. At contact

I've added lines to represent the defender's position at each moment. The red set is the defender's position relative to the endline, which may or may not be sufficient to see if the defender was moving towards the dribbler since the defender is not moving directly away from the endline. It does show the defender moving towards midcourt as well as toward the interior of the lane.

The green set is the defender's position relative to the dribbler set at the same point on the defender's chest. The yellow line is the line directly between the defender and the dribbler. The camera angle is such that it would be valid to use the green lines as the plane between the two players. Using fixed markings (such as the trash can) on the court/wall relative to the defender's position you can see that the defender's position continued forward until contact.

http://cbrust.smugmug.com/photos/i-v...vW6Bkdx-XL.gif

Not correct. Having feet down only gets LGP if the body is over those feet and the body is not moving forward into the opponent....see the rule I've quoted several times. Sticking a foot out in front of you doesn't give you that spot until your body reaches that spot too.

Again, she was not going UP, she was going forward. Verticality doesn't matter relative to forward motion. That is just the wrong application of verticality.

I could accept that if, in real time, you felt she maybe got there in time and was no longer moving forward, but you're using the wrong rule to justify it.

Easy Peasey Lemon Squeezy ...
 

Easy. The trash can was there first, has legal guarding position, and doesn't move in any direction. Legal play on the trash can. Player control foul on dribbler.

Looking at your photos. She's legal in frame 2 before she gets hit, she's legal in frame three.

Where she choses to put her chest/stomach inside her cylinder isn't illegal whether she sticks her butt back or lifts her chest and legs up (which will move her hips and ribs outward/foward everytime). It only becomes illegal when she extends beyond her cylinder or plane.

You are the one combining the LGP and verticality rules. Most posters here are trying to keep them seperate.

If she were standing still prior to the play and the difference in her body between frame 2 and 3 that you posted was just her choice of movement to challenge shooter, protect herself whatever . . .would you have a foul. Just standing there and her posture from frame 2-3 was only change?

The offensive player has no expectation of time and space. I think you are punishing the defender for what she was doing prior to establishing LGP. ie. Facing and in path. Rather then officiating what she does once she has it.

I know your argument may be that she doesn't have it. But by the requierments she does have LGP. I think you are the only person counting torso movement inside her cylinder (or from behind to into depending on your take) as forward movement. Occupying space you are entitled to should not be a foul/