Forum: Basketball
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:12am
|
|
Replies: 26
Views: 2,701
How About 9-9-2
9-9-2 is more to the OP. It states that a team with control in the backcourt can not cause the ball to get front court status (doesn't have to be in player control) and then cause it to go into the...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:19pm
|
|
Replies: 26
Views: 2,701
Player control is not required
Team control is what is required and the ball has to have front court status. If you are passing the ball around in the front court, there is no player control but there is team control. If A2...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:13pm
|
|
Replies: 26
Views: 2,701
Actually
There is a case play that predates the change to the team control on a throw in that says if the A1 throws the ball with backspin into the front court causing the ball to obtain front court status...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:11pm
|
|
Replies: 26
Views: 2,701
Violation
There was team control and the ball obtained front court status. There doesn't have to be team control per se in the front court. At least not based on case plays. There is a case play where the...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:03pm
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 5,487
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:52pm
|
|
Replies: 16
Views: 2,346
By Rule
If you have definitive knowledge of how much time should be on the clock, you put that much time on and line them up.
In Georgia, we are told in this situation to put .3 seconds on the clock and...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:09am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
One other point
If we can disregard any case play because we don't THINK it is compatible with the rule book, then any one of use can disregard any arguments made using the case book. All we have to say is the case...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:02am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:46am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
I guess we will just have to disagree then
I think too many people get hung up on what I consider the red herring argument. That is A1 crashes into B2 who does not have LGP on A1. The argument you and others have made is that he doesn't...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:18am
|
|
Replies: 21
Views: 2,620
Yes he does have LGP, at least according to NFHS
I believe there was an official interp that came out years ago. I can't find it but the official interp is that the prone player does have LGP. I disagree with their logic but it is what it is. I...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:47am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:10pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
No I'm not
Once LGP is established you are correct. The foot in the air means nothing. I said that the defender had NOT OBTAINED LGP. Or at least I meant to. The foot in the air when moving to OBTAINED LGP...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:40pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
Wow!
I have kept this debate civil and now just because you can't prove me wrong you insult my rule knowledge! You have yet to prove that LGP is only required on a moving player. You can't even point to...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:29pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:25pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
Yes but
I agree, however, a player may also be stationary to obtain LGP. Which means LGP is required for a stationary player in this instance.
SITUATION 13: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:07am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
And...
And no where does it say that LGP NEVER applies to a stationary player. You can't find it anywhere in the rule book. You are inferring something from what you have read. And I do have this case...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:35am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
I can agree with this
It was the exact argument I made when the new ruling came out. However, a stationary player with one foot in and one foot out doesn't have LGP and for that reason can be called for a block even if...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:32am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
I have addressed this
I have addressed this. Was B1 guarding A2? No! Doesn't need LGP in that instance. A2 can't run him over. I have a charge.
Was he guarding him then turned his back to A2 for a possible rebound?...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:22am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
In some instances yes!
If B2 is guarding A2 when A1 drives the lane. If B2 moves to guard A2 but does not have two feet on the floor when contact occurs in the chest then I have a block. Why? Because the defender never...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:12am
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
Yes it does
If LGP does not apply to a stationary defender in SOME instances why is the definition to obtain LGP you must have two feet on the floor and facing your opponent. Because it does in SOME instances...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:08pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
Lgp
LGP is a status that applies to both stationary and moving players who are in the act of guarding. The LGP rules states that to obtain LGP a player must have both feet on the court. This applies to...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:38pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:28pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
We are almost in agreement
The only thing I disagree with is that a stationary player does not need LGP. In some cases they do. A stationary player who is guarding an offensive player must start with LGP. They then can move...
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:42pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
So are you saying
So are you saying it is legal for the defender to have one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds?
|
|
Forum: Basketball
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:34pm
|
|
Replies: 97
Views: 12,908
That's easy
For the same reason we don't call a violation when a defender loses their balance and steps out of bounds. They didn't intend to step out of bounds. Intent is required. In most cases they probably...
|
