Too Wide ...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The verb "extends" implies a movement by B1 into A1 as A1 attempts to dribble by B1. But B1 simply taking the stance as in the picture and never moving his foot, leg, or knee does not meet the criteria of "extends".

MTD, Sr.

I absolutely disagree. While the player has LGP to start with, when contact is on the extended leg, LGP is lost...by definition.

"extends" is not a active movement, it is a status. If what you said were actually true, a player could also extend his/her arms out to the side and occupy 10+ feet of width without risk of committing a foul.

[JRutledge]

Well either way, if you make contact with legs that are extended (stationary or moving) then I have a foul all day. If you make contact with the torso and not contact with the legs, I have whatever the play would have been ruled based on LGP and positioning as any other contact play.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... when contact is on the extended leg, LGP is lost ... by definition.

Agree.

If defender B1 is standing motionless in a "normal" stance (feet about shoulder width apart), and if dribbler A1 dribbles too close to B1 and "trips" over B1's foot, it's not a blocking foul on B1.

If defender B1 is standing motionless in an "extra wide" stance (legs and feet extended) , and if dribbler A1 dribbles too close to B1 and "trips" over B1's foot, it's a blocking foul on B1.

There's a difference between being tripped, and tripping.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well either way, if you make contact with legs that are extended (stationary or moving) then I have a foul all day. If you make contact with the torso and not contact with the legs, I have whatever the play would have been ruled based on LGP and positioning as any other contact play.

Well stated.