Block/PC (video)

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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/

[IUgrad92]

Tough play either way, and from the discussion and frame by frame breakdown there is still differing thoughts. This could easily be a play that, if it happens two nights in a row, you might call it differently for each, depending on a number of factors.

However this 'close' play ends up getting called, the best thing as a crew is to just make sure anything similar at the other end of the court goes the same direction for consistency.....

Agree though that L should not have had a primary whistle, rather been there for a 'crew call', if needed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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

She would be legal if she didn't continue to move forward. The LGP rules quite clearly state that moving forward negates LGP if contact occurs during the forward movement. If the movement is upward (verticality) it would be legal, but there isn't even a hint of such movement. Even if there were, that doesn't excuse the forward movement.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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 separate.

Verticality is about vertical movement....none of which happens in this play. Also, the cylinder (no such thing, really, verticality is defined by a plane) isn't defined by where the player puts their feet but where the front of torso is located. Your entire argument hinges on a defender having the right to space in front of them which they are not occupying. No defender has such rights. She is moving her entire torso into new space all the way to the point of contact.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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?

Yes. First, no one can stand with the posture in #2 without falling on their butt. Even if she could, it would still be a foul. She is moving forward and sticking her chest/belly out in front of the position she legally obtained. Verticality and the cylinder doesn't really apply here but even it if did, she's moving it forward, not moving up within it.

Verticality, as in firming up, isn't what is happening here. She isn't straightening the body to be aligned vertically which usually occurs when a player raises up with their shoulders arms bring the belly/hips forward to be in line with the shoulders. She is moving all parts forward....not the same thing as bringing the midsection inline with the upper body.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

Again, by still moving forward, she gives up any LGP she may have obtained.

I quote the guarding rule again:

c.The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.

She IS moving forward, not upward....LGP lost.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I know your argument may be that she doesn't have it. But by the requirements 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/

The movement is NOT inside her cylinder. Her cylinder is where she is, not in front of it...and only UPWARD movement is allowed by verticality. The space she is entitled to is not the space in front of her.


Here is another rule quote covering verticality (found in the section on the use of hands/arms):

It is legal to extend the arms vertically above the shoulders and need not be lowered to avoid contact with an opponent when the action of the opponent causes contact.

Note that the reference for verticality in this rule is the shoulders, not the feet.

[JetMetFan]

So here's the upshot on this play from one of my assignors/supervisors (I sent them the original clip, not the super slo-mo): it's a player-control foul.

Why? The defender established LGP and and did not lose it prior to the illegal contact by the BH/dribbler.

How? The defender had two feet on the floor and her torso was facing her opponent. There's nothing in the LGP rule requiring the rest of her body to come to a halt for LGP to be established.

What about the "movement" by the defender? "Movement" is generally thought to involve the feet and the defender didn't create/cause the contact. My assignor/supervisor agreed with my statement that verticality allows the defender to rise/straighten herself since that's written into the rule.

Believe me, this assignor/supervisor would've told me if I had it wrong...in a heartbeat.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

What about the "movement" by the defender? "Movement" is generally thought to involve the feet and the defender didn't create/cause the contact.

I can live with the player control foul, it's a tough bang bang play, but ...

Movement only involves the feet? That's a tough one to swallow.

Does this mean that hip checks, and elbows to the ribs, aren't considered movement if the feet aren't moving?

Was it legal for Moe to poke Curly's eyes because Moe's feet weren't moving?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Movement only involves the feet? That's a tough one to swallow.

No putting words in my mouth . The wording was "generally" not "only." Obviously there are other forms of movement.

[Bad Zebra]

Just getting caught up on this thread...reading through the debate...great analysis on a true 50/50 play...my take is this: If we are still debating after looking at super slow mo and using stacks of definitions, geometry, and rules citations to decide the right call, I can easily live with the call made by the official on the spot in real time. I don't think either side of this debate is absolutely correct.

But this made me spit out my coffee:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Was it legal for Moe to poke Curly's eyes because Moe's feet weren't moving?

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk. Happy 4th Billy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk. Happy 4th Billy.

In the spirit of Independence Day, and with the God given right that all red blooded American males above a certain age have to revere the Three Stooges, who can name all six Three Stooges? Yeah, that's right, six (and I'm not talking about the recent 2012 movie). No fair using the internet.

[Rich]

When a call is this close, the official's first reaction is going to be the "right" call. Once in a great while, the call is truly 50/50.

Personally, I would ship a 50/50 call like this every time (I hope). It's hard to play defense. If it's this close, reward the defender.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

So here's the upshot on this play from one of my assignors/supervisors (I sent them the original clip, not the super slo-mo): it's a player-control foul.

Why? The defender established LGP and and did not lose it prior to the illegal contact by the BH/dribbler.

How? The defender had two feet on the floor and her torso was facing her opponent. There's nothing in the LGP rule requiring the rest of her body to come to a halt for LGP to be established.

Again, it is not about establishing LGP...she had that. But there are ways to lose it.. I quote the rule:

ART 3. After the initial legal guarding position is obtained...
The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

By this rule, she lost it after having gained it.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

What about the "movement" by the defender? "Movement" is generally thought to involve the feet and the defender didn't create/cause the contact.

I think your assignor is wrong about movement. Why? Players don't play defense by sticking their feet in front of their opponents. That, alone, even if both are on the floor is not sufficient. Defensive position is about the body. The feet are merely a marker used to indicate when in time LGP is obtained but the body is what is doing the guarding and what is regulated by the guarding rule.

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body..."

Both players created contact since both were moving towards each other. Plus, creating contact isn't illegal and is a bad way to define who gets the foul.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My assignor/supervisor agreed with my statement that verticality allows the defender to rise/straighten herself since that's written into the rule.

That is true. But that isn't what this player did. There was absolutely no vertical element to this play.

[Camron Rust]

Got some input from my current and past assignors. They both had a PC.

In speaking to one of them, he said he had to watch it multiple times, even in slow-mo, to come to a conclusion of PC but would't disagree with someone who had a block since it was so close.

Verticality was not mentioned as the reason.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Verticality was not mentioned as the reason.

What did they say about forward motion?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What did they say about forward motion?

That is where the one I spoke with mentioned he wouldn't disagree with someone who called it a block but he felt the defender did enough for him to have a PC.