Coaches understanding LGP

[Nevadaref]

Try this.

"Coach, the defender was moving backwards and your player still managed to run her over!"

[crosscountry55]

I think you were close. To appease the coaches who are educated by TV color commentators who usually use the term "set" over "legal guarding position" (which I believe is the root of the problem), I would just say:

"Yes, her feet were set initially and then she maintained legal guarding position."

When I was first-year official and didn't understand this rule, I called a block that should have been a charge because the defender had LGP but was moving backward. I said to the incredulous coach, "he wasn't set." The coach very patiently challenged me to take a closer look at the rule. I did, and I've been educated ever since. My point? It's too bad we can't say the same thing in reverse to a coach, but invariably asking them to take a closer look at a rule comes across as insulting. So I'd use the more indirect approach of using a phrase like "maintained legal guarding position" in the hopes that it at least causes the coach to pause long enough to think, "hmmmmm" while I go back to officiating.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think you were close. To appease the coaches who are educated by TV color commentators who usually use the term "set" over "legal guarding position" (which I believe is the root of the problem), I would just say:

"Yes, her feet were set initially and then she maintained legal guarding position."

When I was first-year official and didn't understand this rule, I called a block that should have been a charge because the defender had LGP but was moving backward. I said to the incredulous coach, "he wasn't set." The coach very patiently challenged me to take a closer look at the rule. I did, and I've been educated ever since. My point? It's too bad we can't say the same thing in reverse to a coach, but invariably asking them to take a closer look at a rule comes across as insulting. So I'd use the more indirect approach of using a phrase like "maintained legal guarding position" in the hopes that it at least causes the coach to pause long enough to think, "hmmmmm" while you go back to officiating.

My only issue with this is the use of the word set. A defender is never required to be set, or to have been set at any point. Nothing about gaining or maintaining LGP requires a player to be set.

For me, if "she had legal position" doesn't work, the only cure is a clinic for which we don't have time.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

"Yes, her feet were set initially and then she maintained legal guarding position."

As I see it, I think we should avoid the word "set" altogether.

As I came to understand it (before I started wearing stripes), "set" meant feet planted firmly, lateral with each other, with an immobile body. With "set," it couldn't happen in an instant; there had to be evidence that the defender stood still, and stayed still.

Of course, we all know better here. We only need an instant to identify obtained LGP. What we see as LGP, some see as a moving defender, and nothing more, because they're still looking for a defender to be "set."

The right words are vital to getting the point across, so we call can understand the rules and their applications. To me, "set" belongs in the same category as "over the back" and "reaching foul." It muddies the waters of communication. People visualize "set" as something that has nothing to do with the LGP rule, and only when they look for what we look for, they'll understand.

(Aside to Nevada: Thanks, I'll try that one.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

As I see it, I think we should avoid the word "set" altogether.

Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

Calvin Coolidge once said, "The things I did not say never hurt me." Of course, he was not talking about basketball, but many officials would be smart to heed his sage advice as they communicate with coaches, and players.

Good communication skills are important tools to have on any official’s tool belt. Good communication with a partner, with a player, or with a coach, can go a long way to maintaining control of the game, having good game management, and having a smooth game. Sometimes this communication takes place in oral form, talking to players, or coaches, in some cases to explain a ruling, or in other cases to prevent a violation, or a foul. However, probably for reasons of tradition, there have been things that officials often, or sometimes, say during a game that do not have any basis in the rules, and should probably not be said in a game. This article will cover some of those “best left unsaid” statements.

“He wasn’t set”, is often an official’s answer to a coach who is questioning a blocking foul on his player. This implies that a defensive player must be set, and can’t move, to take a charge, while, in reality, the rules say otherwise. A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he, or she, has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards, or sideways, to maintain a legal guarding position, and may even have one, or both feet, off the floor when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. However, if the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which, in this case, is a blocking foul.

Finally, a thought by Will Rogers, “Never miss a good chance to shut up.”

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Try this.

"Coach, the defender was moving backwards and your player still managed to run her over!"

I had a HC tell me last month that the ball handler had every right to run over the defender in a situation just like you described, !

MTD, Sr.

[Sharpshooternes]

Lately, I have been running into officials, usually the old timers or those who have been around awhile, who think that if the defender is under the basket or behind and an airborne shooter runs them over that they won't call a charge. Their rationale is that the player can't really play defense from there so why reward them. What do you all think about this? has the rule changed in HS to what it is now? Are they just trying to roll over the NBE and NCAA with the RA that isn't there? How do you respond to someone like that?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Lately, I have been running into officials, usually the old timers or those who have been around awhile, who think that if the defender is under the basket or behind and an airborne shooter runs them over that they won't call a charge. Their rationale is that the player can't really play defense from there so why reward them. What do you all think about this? has the rule changed in HS to what it is now? Are they just trying to roll over the NBE and NCAA with the RA that isn't there? How do you respond to someone like that?

By asking the individual if he can read and directing him to this Case Book ruling:

10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before
A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1
to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before
A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact
occurs, the player-control foul cancels the goal. However, if B1 moves into the
path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. B1’s foul on the airborne
shooter is a foul during the act of shooting. If the shot is successful, one free
throw is awarded and if it is unsuccessful, two free throws result. (4-19-1, 6; 6-
7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Lately, I have been running into officials, usually the old timers or those who have been around awhile, who think that if the defender is under the basket or behind and an airborne shooter runs them over that they won't call a charge. Their rationale is that the player can't really play defense from there so why reward them. What do you all think about this? has the rule changed in HS to what it is now? Are they just trying to roll over the NBE and NCAA with the RA that isn't there? How do you respond to someone like that?

I am one of those old timers that WILL call the charge.

MTD, Sr.

[Rob1968]

I don't have my NFHS books from the year that the specific editorial change was made, in Rule 4-23, which removed the word "establish" and inserted the word "obtain", in regards to LGP.
The explanation was that the phrase "establish LGP" seemed to refer to a process, that takes some amount of time, and that the phrase "obtain LGP" better denotes the moment that LGP exists, thus enhancing the concept of LGP regarding actions that are legal/illegal from that point on.

As a player, at the time, having officiated for several years, I was challenged by an opponent regarding whether I had been "set" when I took a charge. I offered him the use of my books, which were in my gym bag, and bet him he couldn't find the word "set" in the Rules book. After several minutes of frantically scouring the book, he threw it on the bench in frustration. Oh, and he didn't pay the bet, either.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Oh, and he didn't pay the bet, either.

Don't feel bad. A 15 year veteran official owes me 40 bucks that I'll never see. 20 because he thought long sleeve undershirts were illegal and 20 because he thought when the defense violated first on a free throw a violation by the shooter was ignored.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am one of those old timers that WILL call the charge.

I guess that wasn't you I saw last month. I took a drive to a different part of the state to see a game, and saw a defender crashed into while stationary and having LGP under the backboard. The old-timer called a block.

[Pantherdreams]

How much of this is really that all of the myths re: block charge (whether invented or adaptations to an old rule) result in the charge not being called.

- Defender has to be stationary.
- Defener cannot be moving.
- Defender can't be too deep.

You never hear myths esposing making it easier to draw charges. The reality is that most players, coaches and a lot of officals whether just using rules or applying myths feel like the number of conditions that have to be met in order for it to be a charge simply mean most plays aren't charges. Therefore they want/expect all close plays to the naked eye to go to the offense.


ON the flip side:

I work with a lot of guys who no call a lot more than I am comfortable no calling but when in Rome. THat being said I feel like crews I work on (myself included) tend to be more often sure that we know its a block than being sure we know its a charge. So when I look back at tape to judge performance if forced to make a call in areas I let go/no called I would have more PC's or borderline PC's on my no calls then I would blocks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

How much of this is really that all of the myths re: block charge (whether invented or adaptations to an old rule) result in the charge not being called.
- Defender has to be stationary.
- Defener cannot be moving.

That's why we have "The List":

A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he or she has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards or sideways to maintain a legal guarding position and may even have one or both feet off the floor when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. If the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which is a blocking foul.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I guess that wasn't you I saw last month. I took a drive to a different part of the state to see a game, and saw a defender crashed into while stationary and having LGP under the backboard. The old-timer called a block.

I would actually expect this call more from newbies who have NBA/NCAA games they watch on TV in their head instead of the NFHS rules . . . one of the joys of CYO middle school hoops in our area is we ahve such a wide variety of refs some who know (at least mostly) the rules and some who call based on whatever they've seen on TV.

Very, very fw seem to have a clue on charges -- perhaps becuase defenders playing for a charge are few and far between at that point and they aren't watching for it . . . but if I had a nickel for every "block" that was more of a "failed to get out of the way of the out of control driver" . . .