Too Wide ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

From the Situation that described, if B1 took this stance in Obtaining his LGP and never moved any part of his body, and then A1 while attempting to dribble around B1 tripped over B1's left foot: What question has B1 did that was Illegal?

He extended a "leg into the path of an opponent".

4-23-1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. 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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

He extended a "leg into the path of an opponent".

4-23-1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. 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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.