Sure you did. You said if B1 is lying on the floor, A1 may then jump and land on him and at the same time draw a foul. I say if B1 is there first, A1 is responsible for the contact.

Nope, not legal, and it's covered under the screening rules. It has nothing to do with LGP.
Already did, 4-23-3 describes how LGP is relevant by describing the additional rights it confers on the one who has LGP.

Furthermore, jdw3018 lays it out well just above.

:rolleyes: Then please post it. The case we're discussing doesn't prove your point. You're misunderstanding its point.

Not unless the player is moving. Absolutely. When the defender is guarding while moving.
Like so many other aspects of the rules, you have to take all of the rules together to get the complete picture -- guarding, screening, incidental contact, and 10-6. Lay them all out, side-by-side, and what do you find? You find that LGP is only mentioned in the context of a guard who is moving to maintain position, jumping, etc.

But since you will undoubtedly disagree with this, no matter how many times it's said, let's turn the argument around.

Please show me where in the rules or cases it states that LGP is relevant on a stationary player, beyond the protections already afforded a stationary player.

Only half right. The defender was called for a block because he lost LGP and because he was moving at the time of contact. Were he not moving, he would be a stationary defender, with an established position in the path of the offensive player and LGP would not be relevant.

I never said he could jump on him. Under certain circumstances B1 being on the floor can be a block. I did not make a blanket statment. It depends on time and distance and if the player being defended as the ball or not.

The reason I brought up the screen is because you seem to think the player is entitled to a spot on the floor no matter how large an area. That's just not the case. And rule 4-23-3 does not exclude a stationary player when defining LGP.

It would be stupid to exclude a stationary player. Because a stationary player can establish and maintain LGP.

But that's the not the issue. Because, even though a stationary player has LGP, LGP isn't relevant to a stationary player because any protection provided by LGP is already explicitly afforded a stationary player.

Really?

The spot doesn't belong to A1 until he leaves the floor. If B1 is laying there before A1 jumps, the foul is on A1. If not, it's on B1. Do you disagree with any of this?

jdw again does a spectacular job of explaining this, and I have no desire to try to re-state it.

Note that the NCAA has a different take on the "fallen player" -- in NCAA if B1 falls and A1 gets the rebound and trips over B1, it's a foul on B1.

I wish FED would either leave the case play in the book, or issue a "retraction / change" when they take a play out of the book.

...yawn...

I was sleeping all night - what did I miss? :)

I thought you were at the beach.

I was dreaming about cheerleading coaches, I think.

Nothing - in the old IT world, we called this a "Do Loop." (although, I'm not sure if the condition is true or false). ;)

I thought that was a style of music in the 50s; part of the origins of rock and roll.

Nope, that's "Do Wop".

Geeze, young people these days... :rolleyes:

Hey, one of my airmen told me yesterday that I'm old. Something about, "If you injure yourself putting on your boots...."

You stepped on your own hand?!? :eek:

Yep, you're old. :D

Not exactly. Jammed my finger, ruptured a tendon, and the doctor calls it a "mallet deformity."
I think I'll tell people I was saving a hot cheerleading coach from a raging fat guy at the beach.