Coaches understanding LGP

[bainsey]

JV G today, lopsided game, visitors defeated home handily. (Varsity game was similar.)

Coach H had a little difficulty understanding LGP. My partner had a charge against H on in the first half, and I had two charges on H in the second half. For both of my calls, the defender was moving backwards at the time of contact, but LGP was established. I'll give Coach H credit for being patient (he's not working with much, only eight players), but he looked like he needed an explanation, so I provided one after I reported the foul...

Coach: "I just don't understand...."
Me: "Sure, the defender established LGP, and maintained it moving backwards."
Coach: "Were her feet set?"
Me (wincing a little): "That's a myth, Coach. That whole 'set' thing is a myth."

With that, I take off for the other end-line.

I'm not crazy about this exchange, for two reasons. First, as soon as the coach said "set," he lost me. We don't have time to conduct clinics here. Second, I actually said "LGP" (the initials, not the term) and that must have confused him. I used refspeak, and I believe the wrong choice here.

Question 1: Who has a better, concise explanation that reaches coaches who have bought into the "set" myth?

Question 2: What's it going to take to eradicate this myth? We're not taking about an obscure rule here; LGP understanding is fundamental to block/charge.

[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.)

[Raymond]

"Defender established and maintained legal guarding position."

[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.”

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"Defender established and maintained legal guarding position."

If they cannot get it after that, not my problem. I do not have to explain much more than that and what they say is not going to change my call anyway.

It is up to them to know what the rules actually says. It is not my place to teach them.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Coaches aren't alone. We have officials that can't get it.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Coaches aren't alone. We have officials that can't get it.

Thankfully most of those guys hang out on Facebook.

[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.