UNC/Duke (Video)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by RefCT

We are advised to call it a block because if he starts leaning back before contact, he lost verticality and is no longer has LGP. No different than if he had his arms extended and made contact. (I didn't watch the video - I am referring to a case where they start to fall backwards without contact - not moving backwards with their feet)

and we are told defender cannot move in any direction except vertically before contact. they made a point to say this when they changed the block/charge rule from last year's fiasco.

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All good except he's not allowed to pivot after the jump stop and he did....with a large step, not a little shuffle or anything that could be considered hair splitting.

He jumped off of one foot well after catching the ball prior to the jump stop....he had it in both hands above his head before he jumped.

Right, so what could he have done legally after the jump stop to get his shot off? Jumped with both feet?

BTW, any diff NCAA/NFHS in this play?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

In the NFL he would have been flagged.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefCT

We are advised to call it a block because if he starts leaning back before contact, he lost verticality and is no longer has LGP.

Interesting interpretation of the LGP rule.

Wrong, but interesting.

Originally Posted by BigCat

and we are told defender cannot move in any direction except vertically before contact. they made a point to say this when they changed the block/charge rule from last year's fiasco.

Also a wrong interpretation of the rule. Players may always move backwards after gaining LGP. In fact, the only direction of movement that costs them their LGP is towards the ball handler.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Also a wrong interpretation of the rule. Players may always move backwards after gaining LGP. In fact, the only direction of movement that costs them their LGP is towards the ball handler.

Actually, I heard the same thing in one of my preseason clinics.

[ballgame99]

Most definitely a foul on that screen; the screen looks fine but the blatant holding of the help defender is a foul. Nicely disguised though.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

Interesting interpretation of the LGP rule.

Wrong, but interesting.



Also a wrong interpretation of the rule. Players may always move backwards after gaining LGP. In fact, the only direction of movement that costs them their LGP is towards the ball handler.

No Adam, It's not wrong. It was approved in June by the NCAA oversight panel. If you are attempting to draw a charge on a pass or shot you must be in position before contact occurs and you cannot move in ANY DIRECTION before contact occurs.(except vertically).

and i don't have the time for it until after the season but id like to have a conversation about lgp/rules v how the game has been played for years, and years etc.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Right, so what could he have done legally after the jump stop to get his shot off? Jumped with both feet?

BTW, any diff NCAA/NFHS in this play?

You can jump with both feet. You can lift one foot and then jump off the other (which is what you, I think, described earlier as being illegal -- it isn't).

What you can't do (under this type of jump stop) is lift either foot and return it to the floor.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Interesting interpretation of the LGP rule.

Wrong, but interesting.



Also a wrong interpretation of the rule. Players may always move backwards after gaining LGP. In fact, the only direction of movement that costs them their LGP is towards the ball handler.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Actually, I heard the same thing in one of my preseason clinics.

Originally Posted by BigCat

No Adam, It's not wrong. It was approved in June by the NCAA oversight panel. If you are attempting to draw a charge on a pass or shot you must be in position before contact occurs and you cannot move in ANY DIRECTION before contact occurs.(except vertically).

and i don't have the time for it until after the season but id like to have a conversation about lgp/rules v how the game has been played for years, and years etc.

Someone may have said it, but it is still wrong. A defender can ALWAYS legally move away from the point of contact. There is absolutely no rule support even close to saying otherwise. Whoever is saying it is making stuff up. Just because some number of officials have called it wrong for years and years doesn't make it right.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Someone may have said it, but it is still wrong. A defender can ALWAYS legally move away from the point of contact. There is absolutely no rule support even close to saying otherwise. Whoever is saying it is making stuff up. Just because some number of officials have called it wrong for years and years doesn't make it right.

When I say I heard it, I heard it in some form of context from the NCAA. I remember being taken aback about it, as it was just sort of glossed over. I believe I even brought it up here in a thread before the season started.

However, the preseason slides from Art Hyland contain the followin text concerning 4-17-4:

"If defender establishes legal guarding position before shooter becomes airborne, defender may jump straight in the air or move backwards"

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Someone may have said it, but it is still wrong. A defender can ALWAYS legally move away from the point of contact. There is absolutely no rule support even close to saying otherwise. Whoever is saying it is making stuff up. Just because some number of officials have called it wrong for years and years doesn't make it right.

The NCAA oversight panel has said it. There in charge. They get to make "stuff up." It was recommended and approved. You will see it in the next rule book.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Not saying this is right, but I was thinking...

1. When the defender falls back early it kind of acts like an undercut of the shooter, which can be dangerous.

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

1. The shooter creates a dangerous situation so let's reward it by calling a foul on the defender who did nothing wrong? Wow.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The NCAA oversight panel has said it. There in charge. They get to make "stuff up." It was recommended and approved. You will see it in the next rule book.

Jay Bilas will approve.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Someone may have said it, but it is still wrong. A defender can ALWAYS legally move away from the point of contact. There is absolutely no rule support even close to saying otherwise. Whoever is saying it is making stuff up. Just because some number of officials have called it wrong for years and years doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

When I say I heard it, I heard it in some form of context from the NCAA. I remember being taken aback about it, as it was just sort of glossed over. I believe I even brought it up here in a thread before the season started.

However, the preseason slides from Art Hyland contain the followin text concerning 4-17-4:

"If defender establishes legal guarding position before shooter becomes airborne, defender may jump straight in the air or move backwards"

I just reviewed the preseason NCAA video, John Adams says the defender may move backwards. But I know I heard or read something "official" from the NCAA saying the defender couldn't move backwards. I wish I would have taken better note of it when I came across the information.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I just reviewed the preseason NCAA video, John Adams says the defender may move backwards. But I know I heard or read something "official" from the NCAA saying the defender couldn't move backwards. I wish I would have taken better note of it when I came across the information.

I think some people, perhaps even those with some authority are probably speaking incompletely and others are assuming the comment was absolute when it was intended to apply to a specific set of circumstances.