Train wreck with no LGP

[ABO77]

B1 is guarding A1 near the basket with his/her back to dribbler A2. A2 drives to the basket for a layup and lands on B1's back.

B1 never faced A2, was vertical and standing still well before the crash.

I've called this a PC foul in the past but cant find any rule support for my call.

[Kelvin green]

Defender is entitled to any spot on the floor as long as he was there first...

[JRutledge]

Look at rule 10-6-11 where it states that player shall not commit illegal contact including but not limited to guarding as in 4-23, rebounding as in 4-37, screening as in 4-40 and verticality as in 4-45.

Basically you do not need LGP just to call a player control foul. It would be nice, but not absolutely necessary.

Peace

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by ABO77

B1 is guarding A1 near the basket with his/her back to dribbler A2. A2 drives to the basket for a layup and lands on B1's back.

B1 never faced A2, was vertical and standing still well before the crash.

I've called this a PC foul in the past but cant find any rule support for my call.

Maybe because there might not be any rule support for your call.....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Maybe because there might not be any rule support for your call.....

And then again there might be---rule 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."

If B1 was there and didn't move under A2 after A2 left his feet, then it's always a PC foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Maybe because there might not be any rule support for your call.....

If there wasn't, then any player with the ball could run into any player with his back turned and claim there was no LGP. Not the intent of the rules.

[ABO77]

So why have rule 4-23-2 for "initial LGP" if you have rule 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."

Lets say B1 never obtains initial LGP facing the basket and see's A2 in the distance driving for a layup. Several steps before A2 goes airborne B1 slides into A2's path and then A2 lands on B1's back.

Again, I dont understand the purpose of 'initial LGP' if a defender can guard without it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ABO77

So why have rule 4-23-2 for "initial LGP" if you have rule 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."

Lets say B1 never obtains initial LGP facing the basket and see's A2 in the distance driving for a layup. Several steps before A2 goes airborne B1 slides into A2's path and then A2 lands on B1's back.

Again, I dont understand the purpose of 'initial LGP' if a defender can guard without it.

Read case book play 10.6.1SitA. Note that nowhere in that case play is it stated that the defensive player has to have a LGP.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ABO77

So why have rule 4-23-2 for "initial LGP" if you have rule 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."

Lets say B1 never obtains initial LGP facing the basket and see's A2 in the distance driving for a layup. Several steps before A2 goes airborne B1 slides into A2's path and then A2 lands on B1's back.

Again, I dont understand the purpose of 'initial LGP' if a defender can guard without it.

He's not guarding. He's occupying a legal position on the floor and no opponent can displace him from that. Guarding has nothing to do with this play.

Your play is covered in the 2007-08 Simplified and Illustrated book on page 51. (page 27 in the 2005-06 version with #32 replaced by #5)

The picture shows an airborne offensive player (#32) trying for goal and crashing into an opponent (#5) who is standing just in front of the goal and facing the basket so that his back is towards the oncoming offensive player.
The caption reads:

Number 5 has legal position on the court before No. 32 becomes airborne. The foul is on No. 32, the goal does not count if it is made because it is a player-control foul. A player-control foul causes the ball to become dead immediately. Number 32 is an airborne shooter after releasing the ball on a try until he returns to the floor.

A PC foul is the right call in the OP.

[grunewar]

I misread initial post and thought he was calling foul on B1, not foul on A1. Concur with asessment and rule siting.

Gotta get my reading glasses out and read the fine print......of course, I would NEVER wear my glasses in a game!

[ABO77]

Thanks for the caseplays but I understand that this is a foul on A...I guess my new question is why have rule 4-23-2 dealing with ILGP?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ABO77

Thanks for the caseplays but I understand that this is a foul on A...I guess my new question is why have rule 4-23-2 dealing with ILGP?

Very simple. LGP confers additional rights upon the defender. Specifically, the player is allowed to move laterally or obliquely, raise hands and/or jump vertically, or turn around/duck.

A player who does not establish ILGP has the right to any spot on the floor provided that he gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent, but none of the additional rights named above. For example, if this player is moving laterally at the time of the contact, the proper call would be a blocking foul.

Does that help clarify it for you?

[ABO77]

I got it NR thanx...I should of read further to art 3.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ABO77

I got it NR thanx...I should of read further to art 3.

Nah, it's just that most people have never had it explained to them that way before. Once you hear the logic, it makes sense.