High school rule: player entitled to his space on the floor

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Think of the rebounder that has inside position when the rebound goes long. A1 secures the long rebound and then crashes into the back of stationary B1 (who was standing there since the original shot). This is a foul on A1, not B1, even though B1 never had LGP (wasn't facing). B1 had a legal position, however....B1 was in the spot first.

This example makes the most sense in separating LGP from legal position. So again, we can just go back to the responsibility of one player, to avoid the other, as everyone is entitled to their space.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tnolan

This example makes the most sense in separating LGP from legal position. So again, we can just go back to the responsibility of one player, to avoid the other, as everyone is entitled to their space.

Does this also apply to a screener or defender who has their legs extended way outside their natural base? They are entitled to all space from one foot to the other?

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Does this also apply to a screener or defender who has their legs extended way outside their natural base? They are entitled to all space from one foot to the other?

It wouldn't apply to a screener, as we now bring in LSP (legal screening position) I heart acronyms.
Screener must stay within vertical plane and stance approx shoulder width.

Defender though, I'd say yes. As long as they have first established LGP, then they can maintain LP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tnolan

It wouldn't apply to a screener, as we now bring in LSP (legal screening position) I heart acronyms.
Screener must stay within vertical plane and stance approx shoulder width.

Defender though, I'd say yes. As long as they have first established LGP, then they can maintain LP.

No. A defender's position is generally determined by the position his/her body, not the position of his/her feet (definition of guarding says putting the body in the path...and by body, they mean torso). Extending a foot into the path of an opponent negates LGP (by rule) if contact occurs on the extended foot.

The difference between a player lying down after falling and a defender extending a leg is that the fallen player's legs are presumably in line with his/her torso. The case cited above says that the horizontal player will have committed a foul if they raise a leg to create contact, essentially extending the leg outside his/her body frame.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. A defender's position is generally determined by the position his/her body, not the position of his/her feet (definition of guarding says putting the body in the path...and by body, they mean torso). Extending a foot into the path of an opponent negates LGP (by rule) if contact occurs on the extended foot.

The difference between a player lying down after falling and a defender extending a leg is that the fallen player's legs are presumably in line with his/her torso. The case cited above says that the horizontal player will have committed a foul if they raise a leg to create contact, essentially extending the leg outside his/her body frame.

Okay. Well an extended leg into the path is an obvious foul if that's where the contact is. I was thinking more about OIC on a screener torso with their legs outside plane vs. OIC on a defender torso with their legs outside plane, as well as a defender sliding to move outside their plane but not into the path.

And essentially a "prone player foul" is only a foul...if it's actually a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tnolan

Okay. Well an extended leg into the path is an obvious foul if that's where the contact is. I was thinking more about OIC on a screener torso with their legs outside plane vs. OIC on a defender torso with their legs outside plane, as well as a defender sliding to move outside their plane but not into the path.

And essentially a "prone player foul" is only a foul...if it's actually a foul.

Screener or defender, it doesn't really matter. Contact in the torso is contact in the torso regardless of any extended limb. Even though the screening rules are not as explicitly written in that regard, it is the same principle. They never intended to make a screen illegal due to an extended leg if there is no contact on that extended leg any more than it is with a defender doing the same.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Screener or defender, it doesn't really matter. Contact in the torso is contact in the torso regardless of any extended limb. Even though the screening rules are not as explicitly written in that regard, it is the same principle. They never intended to make a screen illegal due to an extended leg if there is no contact on that extended leg any more than it is with a defender doing the same.

We've stretched outside of the OP but this is good discussion.
The last few posts have got me thinking more about that part you mentioned there in bold.

If A1 is setting a screen with their legs well outside of their normal stance, and B1 makes 'legal' torso contact with A1...it shouldn't really matter where A1's legs are as they really don't have any impact on the contact made vs. if A1 was setting the screen with his legs inside shoulder width
I'm not trying to pick apart the rules/case book on what is/isn't a foul or what we've come to know as fouls...but it's just interesting to me.