??? What does that mean ???

If a defender isn't in legal position, contact created by the offense can still be a block and usually is. And for that matter, red had both feet down 3-4 times.

I think it is still a block, but it has to be for the right reasons.

Bingo.

What I was getting at was red lost LGP as white beat him driving perpendicular to the endline. However on his last step white changes his direction by about 45 degrees. On this new trajectory red is in his path. However after white's last step although red is now in his path I don't think red ever has two feet down again to reestablish LGP but does he need to becasue isn't red entitled to that stop on the floor as he got there first. I liken it to the situation of a guard in the open court dribbling with a defender running next to him. If the guard changes direction to run over the defender next to him I'm not calling a block on him.

Are you sure red loses LGP? Did white get head and shoulders by red? When white isn't moving directly at red, red can still have LGP. If that were not the case, an offensive player could always take 1 step away from an opponent to make them lose LGP then bowl them over if they're not stationary.

I agree with that. Looking again I believe you are correct that red doesn't lose LGP.

Why do you feel it is a block? In real time I would have called charge.

Before there is even a collision the defender grabs the ball-handler's right arm. That should have been a foul.

The defender's movement was towards the offensive player at the time of contact, not laterally or obliquely away from the offensive player.

That's what I had -- and I think he also might have lost LGP -- but I'd have to look again, and I recognize that it's close and I respect the judgment of others on this.