Contact by a dribbler with a player who does not have LGP does not automatically equal a PC foul, does it? I'm thinking specifically of a dribbler running upcourt along side a defensive player. If the offensive player initiates contact, it's a PC, is it not? Wouldn't the same concept apply here, allowing for a PC foul in some cases when the defender may have a foot on the line?

Adam

NO, the same concept <b>doesn't</b> apply here because, in this situation, the defensive player is <b>not</b> playing defense on the playing court. That is the reason that the NFHS used to direct us to call the play this way. The FED says that you <b>can't</b> play legal defense unless you are in-bounds,by rule.

I say
 

what he said. OOB, you have no rights.

It says you can't have legal guarding position. Is that the same thing as saying you can't play legal defense?

That's exactly what the FED said. You can't play legal defense if you're OOB.

All I see are references to "legal guarding position." Are you saying that directly equates to playing legal defense? And, are you saying that in order to have a PC foul, the defender in question has to have LGP? Aren't there potential PC fouls in which the defender does not have LGP?

Strictly speaking illegal block/charge contact when the defender is OOB must be a block. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any other types of contact, no need to confuse the issue by muddying the waters on this.
The fed rewrote the section on LGP but they screwed it up. This was discussed ad nauseum over the summer on both forums. Since then the fed has released an interpretation that says a player cannot gain LGP if he's standing OOB and he loses any LGP he might have had once he steps OOB. It's on their pages somewhere, look it up.

No, I'm not saying anything like that. You're trying to equate plays where the defender is inbounds to plays where the defender is OOB. If the defender is inbounds, the normal block/charge/lgp rules apply. The same block/charge/lgp rules <b>don't</b> apply when the defender is OOB. If the defender is OOB, it is always a block. That's the interpretation that the NFHS put out this year to cover that particular situation.

Make sense, now?

It's on their pages somewhere, look it up.

[/B][/QUOTE]I already posted it in this thread-somewhere back near the start.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust Actually, I think they do. In situation 7 that you reference, it is strongly implied that B1 is moving. "There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso". For B1 to have LGP by having both feet inbounds and then stay in the path such that one foot is out implies movement. B1 is moving and loses LGP when they step on the line. Thus, it's an automatic block for being in motion when contact occurs. It doesn't matter which direction B1 is moving. However, if B1 were stationary, it is possible to draw a foul in absence of LGP. The casebook has several cases on this topic.

Camron, whether he's moving or not has absolutely nothing to do with it. Since when does a defender have to be stationary to gave LGP? Answer: He doesn't. But he does have to be inbounds.

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Sure it does. Tell my why the rule change is in the definition of LGP and not in the definition of the foul.

Agree that the defender doesn't have to be stationary to have LGP. My point is the without LGP, a player loses the right to verticality and lateral movement. The player has to be inbounds to have LGP.
Further, there are several cases where a player who does not have LGP can be fouled. This is one of them.

This is where I disagree. The change is strictly in the definition of LGP.

Additionally, part b of situation 7 goes on to explain that it is a PC foul because B1 had LGP...of which being inbounds is a requirement.

This is no different than B4 waiting for a rebound when A1 instead drives the lane and up the back of B4. B4 didn't have LGP but that doesn't give A1 the right to run him over. B4, if OOB, does not have LGP but it doesn't make him a target. In spite of another poorly written rule/case, it can't possibly be the intent to make B4 open game for contact.

I agree that in most practical cases, however, it will lead to a block. Otherwise the dribbler will have plenty of time to avoid the contact or it will be intentional.
The player can still be pushed, held, etc.

I just want to avoid creating a paraphrase of the rule that is not completely accurate ala "traveling is more then 2 steps", "traveling on the throwin"...the list can go on with over simplifications that morph into inaccuracies.