Shooter Draws Foul (Video)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Almost. A player with LGP can also, after obtaining it, face any direction...no time/distance required before contact. A defender in LGP can turn any direction they wish. It may not be useful or advisable, but they can. It is usually seen in the case of an imminent big crash where they turn to protect themselves from the impact.

Also, the jump forward doesn't, by itself, negate LGP nor does turning sideways (in the NFHS). As long as the defender remains 'in the path", only contact while moving forward negates LGP. So, if the defender, with LGP, stops moving forward before any contact, they will have had LGP the entire time and will keep LGP.

I agree with paragraph one. hung up on why the jump outside the vertical plane does not negate LGP---make him establish it again. we know he can move laterally/obliquely as long as not moving forward when contact occurs cause rule says that. When it comes to jumps it says defender has to stay in vertical plane. If he jumps out of vertical plane he is doing something rule says he shouldn't do after getting initial LGP. it is not a foul when he jumps forward without any contact obviously. but when he hits after jumping out of plane shouldn't he have to get both feet down and torso facing again? i mention sideways cause if he jumps forward and lands with feet down and torso facing offense he does have a new lgp.

i'm getting there. not quite yet.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I agree with paragraph one. hung up on why the jump outside the vertical plane does not negate LGP---make him establish it again. we know he can move laterally/obliquely as long as not moving forward when contact occurs cause rule says that. When it comes to jumps it says defender has to stay in vertical plane. If he jumps out of vertical plane he is doing something rule says he shouldn't do after getting initial LGP. it is not a foul when he jumps forward without any contact obviously. but when he hits after jumping out of plane shouldn't he have to get both feet down and torso facing again? i mention sideways cause if he jumps forward and lands with feet down and torso facing offense he does have a new lgp.

i'm getting there. not quite yet.

You seem to think that LGP must (always) be required. It's not.

Suppose the defender made the exact same move, but did so when the offensive player was at half court. The defender remains in that position, as the offense dribbles forward for 20' (or whatever) and then makes the same contact. No LGP, but clearly no foul on the defense.

Now, what if the distance was 10'? 5'? 3' but the offense was not moving until after the defender came down?

Now, does anything like that apply to this play? That's where the disagreement is.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You seem to think that LGP must (always) be required. It's not.

Suppose the defender made the exact same move, but did so when the offensive player was at half court. The defender remains in that position, as the offense dribbles forward for 20' (or whatever) and then makes the same contact. No LGP, but clearly no foul on the defense.

Now, what if the distance was 10'? 5'? 3' but the offense was not moving until after the defender came down?

Now, does anything like that apply to this play? That's where the disagreement is.

Bob, if you look at my post before last i get that LGP isn't always required. defender is entitled to space on floor. if he meets time and distance requirements he can be sideways if stationary etc. i agree with your example.

what I'm not sure that i agree with is that once you get LGP you can JUMP out of your vertical plane and when you land, even sideways, still be considered to be in LGP.

again, i get if time and distance met i don't have to be in LGP. I'm just now talking about that one statement. thx for replying

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

what I'm not sure that i agree with is that once you get LGP you can JUMP out of your vertical plane and when you land, even sideways, still be considered to be in LGP.

Jumping out of the vertical plane is just another way to say moving toward the opponent. That's it. If there is no contact while the player is moving forward/jumping forward, then there is no impact on LGP. It it was obtained previously, it is maintained. Then, IF there is contact while doing so, LGP is lost because of the combination of contact and the direction of movement.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Jumping out of the vertical plane is just another way to say moving toward the opponent. That's it. If there is no contact while the player is moving forward/jumping forward, then there is no impact on LGP. It it was obtained previously, it is maintained. Then, IF there is contact while doing so, LGP is lost because of the combination of contact and the direction of movement.

I was thinking this while reading all the posts. I thought verticality only comes into play when it comes to contact.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Jumping out of the vertical plane is just another way to say moving toward the opponent. That's it. If there is no contact while the player is moving forward/jumping forward, then there is no impact on LGP. It it was obtained previously, it is maintained. Then, IF there is contact while doing so, LGP is lost because of the combination of contact and the direction of movement.

I get it. I always think of maintaining guarding as moving laterally or slanted/obliquely. Heres play that you never really see but bothers me to think foul would be on offense.
You are coming down the paint dribbling. I'm 10 feet away with feet on floor torso etc. when distance gets to six I jump at you and turn sideways in the air. Or I run at you and turn sideways. I land and stop a split second before you crash into my shoulder. Train wreck. You had no chance to stop.

Under the definitions, I had legal guarding position. I can jump at you spin in air at last second and if I stop foul on you. Just isn't natural call for me....I would like to see the defense have to get squared up again if I move or jump at offense and stop at a point at which offense can't avoid them.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I get it. I always think of maintaining guarding as moving laterally or slanted/obliquely. Heres play that you never really see but bothers me to think foul would be on offense.
You are coming down the paint dribbling. I'm 10 feet away with feet on floor torso etc. when distance gets to six I jump at you and turn sideways in the air. Or I run at you and turn sideways. I land and stop a split second before you crash into my shoulder. Train wreck. You had no chance to stop.
Under the definitions, I had legal guarding position. I can jump at you spin in air at last second and if I stop foul on you. Just isn't natural call for me....I would like to see the defense have to get squared up again if I move or jump at offense and stop at a point at which offense can't avoid them.

There's plenty of time to stop if the dribbler is bearing down. There's nothing about the spin here that's advantageous to the defender, and as was noted previously, the only time you really see it in live action is when the defender is bracing for an imminent train crash. Too many coaches think the defender has to be square on contact, when that's not the case at all.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I agree with paragraph one. hung up on why the jump outside the vertical plane does not negate LGP---make him establish it again. we know he can move laterally/obliquely as long as not moving forward when contact occurs cause rule says that. When it comes to jumps it says defender has to stay in vertical plane. If he jumps out of vertical plane he is doing something rule says he shouldn't do after getting initial LGP. it is not a foul when he jumps forward without any contact obviously. but when he hits after jumping out of plane shouldn't he have to get both feet down and torso facing again? i mention sideways cause if he jumps forward and lands with feet down and torso facing offense he does have a new lgp.

i'm getting there. not quite yet.

Because the rule only determines what's required to establish LGP. Nowhere does it say movement towards the shooter eliminates LGP; only that LGP doesn't protect you from contact made while moving towards the shooter.

The difference is, this means he doesn't have to "re-establish LGP," which would mean more stringent requirements than simply maintaining it.