Shooter landing on defender laying on floor

[thedewed]

A couple of things: charge is defined as contact with the defender's torso. also, the NCAA rule book says that if a dribbler has established a straight line path, he needs to avoid contact with a defender that has established LGP. The negative implication for all of you logic experts is that he doesn't have to avoid contact with someone in his path that doesn't have LGP. The guy saying dribbling to the basket and into someone that is set up for a rebound, oblivious to the drive, is a 'pushing' foul even though he is in possession of the ball? High-level comedy.Being entitled to a spot if you are the first there doesn't preclude the need to have LGP if you come in contact with a ballhandler. Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

.... Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

The point of LGP is to allow the defender to be moving at the time of contact.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A couple of things: charge is defined as contact with the defender's torso. also, the NCAA rule book says that if a dribbler has established a straight line path, he needs to avoid contact with a defender that has established LGP. The negative implication for all of you logic experts is that he doesn't have to avoid contact with someone in his path that doesn't have LGP. The guy saying dribbling to the basket and into someone that is set up for a rebound, oblivious to the drive, is a 'pushing' foul even though he is in possession of the ball? High-level comedy.Being entitled to a spot if you are the first there doesn't preclude the need to have LGP if you come in contact with a ballhandler. Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

My question was about a high school game situation. I don't care about college rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A couple of things: charge is defined as contact with the defender's torso. also, the NCAA rule book says that if a dribbler has established a straight line path, he needs to avoid contact with a defender that has established LGP. The negative implication for all of you logic experts is that he doesn't have to avoid contact with someone in his path that doesn't have LGP. The guy saying dribbling to the basket and into someone that is set up for a rebound, oblivious to the drive, is a 'pushing' foul even though he is in possession of the ball? High-level comedy.Being entitled to a spot if you are the first there doesn't preclude the need to have LGP if you come in contact with a ballhandler. Otherwise,what's the point of LGP?

Good grief. Get you head out of the sand. You have no clue what you're talking about. The POINT of LGP is to allow a defender to be MOVING at the time of contact. But, you probably call a player for a block if they're not set too.

[thedewed]

Head isn't in the sand, I'm very familiar with how that rule works. I would also submit that the requirements for INITIAL LGP are as important as those for MAINTAINING LGP. I suppose you all don't think there are any initial requirements, since driving into a rebounder's back is on the offense. So I guess with the same rationale from you rocket scientists, if that defensive player is lying in front of the basket and a driver runs into him on the way to the basket, you are coming out with a player control foul? The logic is the same.

[BillyMac]

10.7.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court
before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1;
or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands
on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and
(b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

Why no mention of legal guarding position here?

Because it doesn't apply.

4-23-1: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player
gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who
extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not
considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Head isn't in the sand, I'm very familiar with how that rule works. I would also submit that the requirements for INITIAL LGP are as important as those for MAINTAINING LGP. I suppose you all don't think there are any initial requirements, since driving into a rebounder's back is on the offense. So I guess with the same rationale from you rocket scientists, if that defensive player is lying in front of the basket and a driver runs into him on the way to the basket, you are coming out with a player control foul? The logic is the same.

I am going to ignore this for multiple reasons. I just want to say, once again, that I am convinced that it was a "no call" in my original situation. There has been no argument made to change my mind. Have a great day, everyone.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Head isn't in the sand, I'm very familiar with how that rule works. I would also submit that the requirements for INITIAL LGP are as important as those for MAINTAINING LGP. I suppose you all don't think there are any initial requirements, since driving into a rebounder's back is on the offense. So I guess with the same rationale from you rocket scientists, if that defensive player is lying in front of the basket and a driver runs into him on the way to the basket, you are coming out with a player control foul? The logic is the same.

You continue to prove that it is in the sand by continuing to insist that the ruling is somehow related to LGP. In doing so, you continue to expose that you have no idea when LGP applies and doesn't apply. Keep denying simply concepts that are laid out in plain black & white. Your credibility shrinks with each post.

Enough energy wasted on a lost cause, I'm out. I'll spend my efforts on people that actually want to learn.

[thedewed]

try using logic and extrapolate from these examples in the casebook:

B1 slips to the floor in the free-throw lane. A1 (with his back to B1,
who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his attempt to drive to the basket,
trips and falls over B1.
RULING: Foul on B1, who is not in a legal guarding position.

Me: why is it necessary to mention that B1 is not in LGP if it doesn't matter? Because it does matter.

A.R. 101. Player A1 attempts a shot, which bounces off the rim.
1. Player A2, who is in the lane area, grabs an offensive rebound and
immediately attempts a put back and crashes into the torso of B2, who is
grounded on the court within the restricted area; or
2. Player A2, who is located on the wing just inside the three-point line,
gains possession of a long rebound and immediately drives to the basket
with no defender. Player A2 crashes into the torso of B2, who is grounded
on the court within the restricted area.
RULING 1: When A2 rebounds the ball and immediately makes a
move to the basket, there is no secondary defender and the restricted
area rule is not in effect.
2: When B2 has established and maintained a legal guarding position
and illegal contact occurs, it is player-control/charging foul on A2.
(Rule 4-36.3, 4-31 and 10-1.14

Me: Why point out that B2 has established and maintained LGP if it doesn't matter? Because it does matter.

This is all in the same books that say this:

Every player shall be entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided
that such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

[SNIPERBBB]

We are discussing NFHS rules not NCAA which we know has a different ruling for this play

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Why point out that B2 has established and maintained LGP if it doesn't matter? Because it does matter.

It doesn't matter here:

10.7.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court
before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1;
or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands
on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and
(b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

Nothing about B1 initially having both feet touching the playing court.

Nothing about the front of the B1's torso facing A1.

Nothing at all about initial legal guarding position.

Nothing, and yet the NFHS confidently rules this a charge on A1.

Legal guarding position does not matter in NFHS plays like this.

[thedewed]

Nah, you guys are overthinking it. This is in the NCAA casebook. They probably figure people will use common sense and not spell out every little thing. These books are written by human beings lol:

A.R. 87. B1 takes a spot on the playing court before A1 jumps to catch a pass.
1. A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1; or
2. B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 comes to the floor on
one foot and then charges into B1.
RULING: In both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1. In (1), B1
is entitled to that spot on the floor provided he gets there legally
before the offensive player becomes airborne. However, in (2), when
A1 possesses the ball then lands on the floor, no time and distance is
required.

Me: again, this example is in the same book as the earlier example saying it was a block because the guy was on the floor, and thus not in LGP. So LGP is needed, just not spelled out, probably because no one in the history of the game would ever think that readers wouldn't already know that that is a given.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It doesn't matter here:

10.7.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court
before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1;
or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands
on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and
(b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

Nothing about B1 initially having both feet touching the playing court.

Nothing about the front of the B1's torso facing A1.

Nothing at all about initial legal guarding position.

Nothing, and yet the NFHS confidently rules this a charge on A1.

Legal guarding position does not matter in NFHS plays like this.

I would not necessarily say all of that BM. Just because the words are not there does not mean that the words are not there. In other words, it may not say it, but it references rule 4-23-5d and that rule explicitly discusses obtaining legal position. Additionally, rule 4-23 mentions both feet touching the playing court, initial legal guarding position, etc. Now, that is not exactly what you wrote but I think you get my point. The case may not say things but rules that they reference might.

And not sure why Raymond is going on about someone on the floor setting a screen as screeners are vertical.