Block / Charge Situation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I never said he was! Every player has a right to a spot on the floor including A1 who is going up for a rebound.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

And you still haven't answered my question regarding a player setting a screen with his feet outside his shoulders? Is that a legal screen if contact occurs? Or did I miss your answer in all of the posts we've been making.

Nope, not legal, and it's covered under the screening rules. It has nothing to do with LGP.

Originally Posted by rwest

Also, please site the rule that says LGP is only relevant on a moving player.

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rwest

Over the back is not a foul.

Originally Posted by rwest

And all of your examples are on the playing court. I'm not losing site of the big picture. I have a case play that proves my point.

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

Originally Posted by rwest

Let's stick with the OP. Let's not use every example where LGP is not reguired for a foul. You do agree that there are times when a player who has lost LGP is called for a foul, do you not?

Not unless the player is moving.

Originally Posted by rwest

So there are times when it is necessary.

Absolutely. When the defender is guarding while moving.

Originally Posted by rwest

No where in the rules does it say the LGP is only relevant on a moving player. If so, give me the citation. I'll change my position if you can prove me wrong with a rule and/or case play.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

I'll say it again: The defender was called for a block because they lost LGP. They lost LGP because they were out of bounds. They were not called for a block because they were moving. Deal with the case play. Address that instead of all the plays that you and I agree do not require LGP for a foul to be called on the offense.

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

Really?

Originally Posted by rwest

I'll agree with you in that out in the open floor this is probably not going to be a block. But my example is dealing with rebounding action around the basket. When A1 goes up for a rebound they are entitled to a landing spot. If they land on B1's unmoving leg and fall to the ground, you have to have a block because A1 is entitled to his spot on the floor too. He has the right to verticality. B1's spot can't occupy A1's spot, which in my example it did.

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?

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

...yawn...

I was sleeping all night - what did I miss?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...yawn...

I was sleeping all night - what did I miss?

I thought you were at the beach.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I thought you were at the beach.

I was dreaming about cheerleading coaches, I think.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...yawn...

I was sleeping all night - what did I miss?

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Nothing - in the old IT world, we called this a "Do Loop."

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Nope, that's "Do Wop".

Geeze, young people these days...

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?!?

Yep, you're old.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You stepped on your own hand?!?

Yep, you're old.

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.