I was being silly
the response was to the play where A1 was OOB and inbounding the ball reached through the plane and contacted by B1. Sorry long thread

There are lots of options. B1 standing still, looking at his coach for a signal, and A1 runs by him, brushing him hard enough to knock him down.

Or a rebound, B1 facing the basket, ball goes to A1 behind him. A1 grabs it and charges through B1 before B1 has a chance to turn around.

Hmm, actually B1 could have LGP in this particular case.

Perhaps a better example would A1 driving to the basket, B2 is guarding A2 on the post, and B2's back is to A1. As A1 drives past B2, A1 gives a little forearm to B2's back to creat a little more space. (Snaqs has more examples.)

Anyway, we agree the offense can commit a player-control foul against a defender who does not have LGP.

This leads us back to the question of the stationary defender with the foot on the line. My whole point is the case play tells us the defender does not have LGP, due to the foot being on the line. It does not say the defender has "illegal position", and it does not say the defender is responsible for all contact because they are OOB. There have been no specific rules citations to back up any of those comments. So, all other things being equal, my point (and a couple others here), say there can be a situation where A1 can be called for the player-control foul, even though B1's foot is on the line OOB.

Do you follow the logic?

New example to illustrate the point
 

Here is a new twist to demonstrate the point...

For those that insist the foul is on the player who is OOB just because they are OOB, what is your call if they are both OOB?

Example: A1 loses the ball, an interrupted dribble, just before stepping on the line running into a stationary and OOB B1.

Double violation, and POI? :D

Sorry, my head hurts...I need a weekend, I think.

I do not disagree that there could be such a situation,
such as just bowling B1 over becuase he was there, pushing off with the arm, and several others that have probably been mentioned in this thread.

it is possible that you could call a PC foul here,

No player control during an interuppted dribble,
but yes you could have a foul on A1

OH, I think by your logic, you can choose between flagrant offensive, intentional offensive, or a block. I honestly don't see how you could ever go with PC if you consider the player to be illegal by virtue of his toe on the line.

Shouldn't you go with a double?

Whew...I'm think I'm starting to make a little headway.

Now you see my point. There are others that have said you can never have a PC, only because the defender had their foot on the line. Iow, they have an "illegal position" and the only calls could be a block or no-call.

If the defender is not "gaurding" the player with the ball. If they are "guarding," remember the definition from earlier, then they must have LGP and, also from earlier, you can't ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN legal gaurding position OOB.

Where's your cite for this?

From the definition of guarding that I posted earlier. Do you not remember, or are you forgetting b/c it makes my point?

Rule 4 Sec. 35 Art 1 Defines Guarding - Guarding shall be the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. The guarding position shall be initially established and then maintained on the playing court.

If you don't consider the defense to be guarding, then LGP doesn't apply. If you consider them to be "guarding" then they must establish and maintain LGP. That is why the rules that tell you that fall under the guarding definition.:rolleyes:

I'll have to find this tonight in the book, but I thought you were quoting NCAA rules.

Is it your contention that if A1 gets the ball, B1 is between him and the basket with one foot in the air, A1 can run by him and knock him over if he does it before B1 gets his foot down to establish LGP even though B1 is stationary?

That is the NCAA rule. I believe that the HS rule is the same though. See next post!