Are you allowing holding by the ball handler because the player is OOB? If the defender is trying to get out of the way and steps OOB, but the offense goes out of their way to jump into the offense (because they see their foot on the line) are you calling a block even though the offense is just standing on the court clearly out of the lane to the basket?

LGP doesn't equal legal position. What is a legal position and why does it matter?

In this case play, B1 is moving to maintain position. Since he is moving, LGP is required to be legal. If B1 is stationary, LGP is not required.

Try again. LGP is not required for a PC foul.

You're confusing LGP with something that doesn't exist.

This play is a block because the defender is trying to maintain LGP and steps on the line in doing so. It's not saying there is a foul automatically no matter what because a player has a foot OOB.

The wording is the same, is it not? It's about the playing court. The violation is for leaving the playing court, so if one foot on the line is not a violation for leaving the playing court, how can we say he doesn't have a legal position because he's not on the playing court? He's either on the playing court or he's not.

I recognize he doesn't have, nor can he have LGP. I do not recognize that this is an illegal position, however, for a stationary player.

A1, the dribbler, runs into B1 and falls over losing the ball. B1 never moves because of the contact A1 made. There are plays like this where I have no whistle, not to say I never have a whistle. Slam was probably poor wording on my part.

Doesn't at some point the defender have to have had a LGP in the path of the offensive player?

For a PC call? No, for instance, if someone is standing on the court with their back to you you don't just get to run them over because they don't have LGP.

If you're talking about something else. Not sure.

Not if he's stationary.

There are three statuses by rule: on the court, authorized off the court and unauthorized off the court. Stationary players in the first have legal position, players in the third have committed a violation. The second, though, have not committed a violation and are not described as being entitled to their position.

We say that because legal position is defined as a spot on the court reached without illegally contacting an opponent.

It would be better if there was a direct rule or case on the situation because the rules only cover the situation by exception.

Interesting list of statuses. It helps me see your argument, even if I disagree. :)

You're saying a player who puts his foot on the line is off the court, but authorized?

Where does it say the bold part in the rule book? Keep in mind LGP and entitled to a position are not the same thing.

I haven't said a thing about LGP in this whole thread.

4-23-1
You can only be entitled to a spot on the playing court which by definition does not include a spot out of bounds.

That's true. You're right.

Can I assume we agree he's off the court?

If we aren't going to call a violation for stepping on the line (without player control, obviously), we must see that as authorized leaving of the court. Authorized leaving of the court is generally interpreted as stepping out of bounds in the normal play of the game without seeking unfair advantage.

I'm not sure how else you could classify him.

I keep saying LGP so you don't confuse the two, which you just did and I tried to prevent. 4-23-1 is talking about LGP. Guarding. Ok. How do you legally guard. LGP.

Nowhere does it say you're not entitled to a spot on the playing court because you have a foot on a line. Unless, it's talking about initially getting or maintaining LGP.