Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! I know, I know!

STFU.

I couldn't help myself. :D

rotflmao!

Another related play:

B1 rolls his ankle in A's frontcourt well ahead of A2 dribbling the ball up the floor. B1 falls to the ground, injured, onto the sideline, and the officials rule that they will allow A to finish their play toward the basket. A2 continues dribbling, while being defensively pressured by B2 towards B1's body. A2's foot contacts B1 and he trips and falls to the floor holding the ball. What is the ruling?

I say travelling (and I surmise M&M, jdw and that camp agree).

(Note - NFHS response only)

Sure
 

As long as they have inbound status. Simple question for you. Can a player be stationary and not have LGP and be called for a block?

I'll say it again. I don't like the interp. But it is what it is. The Fed wants this called a block. The case play proves it. Answer these questions.

1. Why does the case play say B1 was called for a block? I'll answer it for you. Because, and I quote...."because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position."

2. Why did B1 lose LGP? I'll answer for you again... Because they were out of bounds.

No matter how many different scenarios you come up with, it still doesn't change the fact that the Fed wants this called as a block. All of us can come up with a play where a stationary player without LGP is fouled by the player with the ball. But that doesn't mean that a stationary player without LGP can not be called for a foul. All of your plays change the underlying facts. The Fed clearly wants this called a block.

You have to be kidding
 

A kid is laying on the floor. This is not LGP. It's a block. What do you have when A1 goes up for a layup and comes down and is tripped by B1 lying on the floor? It's called a block. You can't play defense lying on the floor! You're entitled to a spot, but not lying on the floor!

Sez who?


B1 is lying on the floor injured, well in advance of the play. If the dribbler, or any other offensive player trips over him, no way is this a block.

Why not?
 

Was he in LGP? No. Did he have a right to be on the floor? No. Are you going to call traveling? I hope not. If anything kill the play to see to the injured player, but in no way does the offense lose the ball. You can't be on the floor rolling in pain and cause the offense to lose the ball.

The only way I won't call this is if the offense had an opportunity to go around the kid. If as you say it is well in advance of the play then the offense has a chance to go around the player. I would agree with you then that the proper call would be traveling if he lost the ball. I'm not going to bail out the offense. However, if its bang-bang, then you have to call a block because the player does not have LGP nor does he have the right to be on the floor like that. He can't occupy as much space as he wants.
What do you call when B1 is laying on the floor and during rebounding action A1 trips over B1? Its called a block. B1 is not in LGP and doesn't have a right to cause A1 to lose his balance by being on the floor.

Almost. You're missing the most fundamental point....not all fouls depend on LGP.

Rule 4-23-3 is all about LGP...nothing more. It does not define fouls or who is responsible for contact beyond the indirect effect of LGP influencing fouls that depend on LGP.

The matching casebook play is written in the explicit context of LGP. It is simply demonstrating that a player who is attemping to maintain LGP (to stay in the path of the dribbler) through otherwise legal defensive actions loses that LGP when they step OOB and that any foul that would have depended on having LGP is now a block. An important part of the play is that the defender was moving to stay in the path of the dribbler....necessitating LGP to be legal.

Take the same play to the center of the court and change one thing to cause the defender to lose LGP...the player was moving toward the dribbler at the time of contact. It is a block. Why? Becuase the defender didn't have LGP. That's all.

Now, put that same defender stationary in the middle of the court but facing away from the dribbler when the dribbler crashes into the defender's back. Does the defender have LGP? No...was never facing the opponent. However, what is the foul? Charge/PC. Why? Because the call doesn't depend on LGP.

While many officials read that play to mean all OOB fouls are blocks, it is not true. It is taken completely out of context to come to that conclusion. The ONLY thing it says is that a player who is OOB can not have LGP and that leads the conclusion that any foul that depends on LGP becomes a block. All other fouls are unaffected.

If he's been lying here the whole game I have nothing. This has been discussed here before. I am not aware of a rule which makes sitting/lying down on the floor, in and of itself illegal.

Correct.
Incorrect. Pretty basic and you'll be the only one arguing that point. All players are entitled to their spot on the floor, even if it is horizontal.
Nope...nothing at all....unless he actually travels.
By what rule?
Incorrect again. LGP is not relevant.
Actually, he can in this case.
It's called tough luck for A1.
A1 doesn't have any right to land on B1....it's a no call....nothing...ever....not even a judgement call. By rule, there is no call to be considered.

Illegal, Or Legal, Contact ???
 

Now what if he was lying there for the whole game while it was being played on an aircraft carrier crossing the Internatinal Dateline from west to east?

Seriously. Can a player be on the floor after a fall, remain motionless for a split second, be involved in a contact situation with a dribbler, shooter, or a player trying to move without the ball, and be called for any type of illegal contact?

Yep...traveling

Find me a rule or case play to support this.

No way!
 

They are not entitled to a spot on the floor laying horizontal. No way!
So then I can set a screen as wide as I want to since there is no restriction on how much space I take up? It's not tough luck for A1. Its a foul on B1. A1 has a right to a landing. B1 can't take that away from them.

Citation Please ...
 

... or to defend it. I'd like to see either.

Look, this case play is all about LGP. For crying out loud, the rule that corresponds to the case play is all about LGP. 4-23 is about guarding in general. 4-23-3 is all about LGP.

Stationary players do not need LGP, so any play that does not require LGP is not covered by case 4-23-3B. Otherwise, the logic of this play would require a blocking foul anytime an offensive player tripped over a defender who never established LGP.

As long as B1 was in place prior to A1 taking off, A1 does not have the right to jump on top of B1.

A question:
When LGP does not apply, aren't screening principals used?

By the way:
Note this thread.

Or this one.

Note they reference a NFHS case play that is no longer there, but has never been actively reversed.

Defenders are not required to have LGP when occupying a spot on the floor, as long as they are stationary.

Also note, the NCAA ruling is different for the player lying on the floor.

It's no longer there, but if you look in an older case book, you'll find it. It's never been reversed; just removed.

In this case, you are unequivocally and completely wrong. B1 is entitled to any spot on the floor...note ANY...as long as they got to that spot legally. Period. Once they are there, they can remain there as long as they like (except for 3 seconds in the lane).

B1 can take any position he/she wants as long as their arms/legs are not extended away from their torso. B1 may have to satisfy time/distance requirements (if they fall to the floor right in front of a moving opponent who doesn't have the ball) but the position itself is not illegal.

Here He Comes to Save The Day ...
 

"10.6.1E B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down".

Snaqwells: What a great citation. How long did it take you to find this? Did you have to go up into your attic like Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. has to do all the time, and complain about it? Did you find it in an old rulebook, or did you come up with it by searching the Forum?

Thanks.

Darnitall, BM and Snaqs, you stole my thunder. :p

I just spent the last 20 minutes searching the forum to come up with the reference and then searching my basement (I'm not as cool as MTD, I don't have an attic) to find my 2003-2004 case book. Only to discover that you'd already posted it.

rwest, the job of beating the dead horse beyond recognition is already taken. But I'll keep you in mind for when I finally decide to step down. ;)

It seems from your posts that you are steadfastly missing the big picture. LGP is all well and good, and this case is all about LGP and losing LGP because the guy has a foot on the line. But there is a lot more to calling fouls than LGP.

• A1 goes over B1's back on a rebound. Foul. LGP is not relevant.
• A1 sets a blind screen on B1, and there is contact. Foul. LGP is not relevant.
• A1, who has the ball in the post, hooks B1 as he goes around him. Foul. LGP is not relevant.
• B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass. A1 lands on B1. Foul. LGP is not relevant.
• B1 tries to block A1's shot, but whacks him on the arm instead. Foul. LGP is not relevant.
• Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

And finally, B1 is standing with a toe on the sideline, stationary, when A1 runs him over. Foul. On A1. LGP is not relevant. Therefore neither is the now infamous case play that only talks about LGP. Which is not relevant. But it is still a foul. And it's still on A1. And LGP still is not relevant. ;)

No Over the Back is not a foul!
 

Over the back is not a foul. 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.

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? So there are times when it is necessary. 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.

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.

I remembered we'd had some discussions on it before. Just didn't know they went back so far.

Tell me why this player requires LGP in order to stand still and the one lying on the floor (or the one standing next to his bench talking to his coach) does not.

4-23-3 provides all the things a player may do once they've achieved LGP. Notice what they all have in common.....



Moving.

This is what LGP is all about; the ability to move.

Tell me why the case play says the defender was called for a block because they were out of bounds and no longer had LGP. Tell me why the case play does not say they where called for a block because they were moving.

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.

Because for LGP to even be relevant, movement must be involved.

Please read the case play Billy posted above. It's still relevant even though it's not in the book, as it's never been reversed by NFHS.

Woohoo! I get to come back in to the play room. I see I missed all the fun last night.

This particular point addresses an airborne player. In your example, if B1's unmoving leg was there prior to A1 leaving the floor to rebound, then no, it's not a foul on B1. A1 is not entitled to a landing spot that was previously occupied.

You mean he's not fair game to jump on once he falls to the floor? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!

I'll agree with BITS here, in that it seems the disagreement is not about the case play or any situation we've come up with, but rather a fundamental understanding of when and why LGP is required, and why it exists.

Having LGP is not exclusive of all the other rules regarding entitlement to a spot and all other types of fouls.

Add this one to the last example above - B1, instead of standing with a toe on the sideline, is standing with one leg in the air in the middle of the court. He has never established LGP. Now, A1 runs him over. What have you got? He doesn't have LGP, so...

Obviously still a PC foul, because B1 is entitled to his spot regardless of his status in relation to LGP.

I said it earlier in this long, long thread somewhere, but LGP is important because it grants additional rights to a player. However, that player does not lose all his other rights when he loses LGP. He simply loses the additional rights of LGP that allow him to move when guarding.

LGP does not - in any way shape or form - apply to a stationary player. A stationary player can have LGP, but it just doesn't matter.

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.

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.

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

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.

it is a block!
 

this is a block. the defender did not have legal guarding position since he had one foot out of bounds

Block !
 

it is a block since the defender did not have legal guarding position with one foot out of bounds

You gonna call a block everytime a player without LGP is involved in contact?

in this case it is the rule
your not going to let an offensive player with the ball step on the line

What rule says a player who is standing still needs to have LGP?

national federation a couple of years ago made a point to have this called a block not saying i like it but it is in the rule book

The most important, fundamental question that seems to be missed by this argument - LGP simply doesn't apply to the play we're discussing!

Cite it, please. And not 4.23.3, because it doesn't apply to the situation we're discussing.

And put your buddy in the hospital in the process!!:D

...sigh...Here we go again.

irishref, first off, welcome to the forum.

Next, please read all of this thread, as we have aleady gone over these exact arguments already. If you have anything new to add, we would be happy to go over that.

Not trying to be hostile or anything, especially to someone new to this place, but some of us are tired of going over this and want to get back to good dreams.

No, the spot belongs to A1 when he legally obtained it which was before he left the floor. He's entitled to the spot until he legally vacates it which is not when he jumped for the rebound. He is entitled to come back down on the same spot. If B1 has fallen and is under him when he comes down, that's a block!

And I said "land" on him; not "jump" on him. Jump implies intent. I would never allow a player to intentional jump on another player. Land does not imply intent. At least that's not what I meant when I made the post.

Nobody has said that B1 is allowed to take a spot that is legally entitled to anyone else. If B1 falls under A1 after A1 has left the floor, then yeah, it's a foul on B1.

Why are you complicating this more than needs to be? If B1 is in a spot (and not A1's spot) before A1 leaves the floor, but then A1 comes down in a different spot, which happens to be the spot B1 is laying on, then it's definitely not a foul on B1...

They made it a point to call a block on the play in the case book, 4.23.3B. That play specifically states it's a block because the defender lost LGP. That implies the defender needed LGP, which implies he was moving (because there is no situation in which a stationary player requires LGP.) There is no rule that ever requires LGP for a stationary player.

Do you have a rules reference for this?

First, if you've got A1 landing in the exact same spot he left from, then I'm with you. B1 obviously moved to the spot after A1 jumped. It has nothing to do with B1's body position, however.
I've got A1 landing in a different spot, one that is occupied by a prone B1. Forget intent, if you think A1 tried to jump on B1, call the X. I'm guessing we agree on that.

Well of course, that's what he gets for calling me old. ;)

Finally, we agree!

Okay, so let me ask this.

A1 jumps for a rebound and lands on the leg of B1, who is lying prone and motionless. B1 never moved, meaning A1 did not jump straight up and down.

What's your call?

I know I'm coming very late to this party and I haven't read all the responses. But if there's a common foul to be called, I'm going block. For those of you who ask rhetorically, "Does that mean a player without LGP is fair game for cheap shots?", I say, if you think A1 took a cheap or intentional shot then call it intentional. But if the guy is out of bounds, then I've got a block.

The rules committee made it crystal clear that the game is legally played inbounds. If you're playing out of bounds, then you're not playing within the rules. So you're going to be called for the foul.

I made the mistake of reading the first four-and-a-half pages of this thread. Once I realized that my eyes were glazing over, I quit reading and went to the last page. How in the world can something so simle turn into 12 pages???

This is what happens when a couple guys (me included) have nothing going on during the day at work. :D

Oh, and I disagree with Scrapper. Not completely, but in regards to the play being discussed in the last 11 pages.

The rule that states they are entitled to a spot "on the playing floor." The player is OOB by definition so they are in a spot that they are not afforded the protection. A stationary player anywhere "on the playing floor" is entitled to that protection BY RULE. In this case, with a player standing OOB, I will NEVER call a player control foul. I may call an INTENTIONAL, or maybe even a FLAGRANT FOUL if the situation warrants that type of call. Otherwise you have INCIDENTAL contact.

You still, in almost 11 pages, have not answered how this player is legally occupying a spot "on the playing floor?"

You are absolutely right!!! But the location of the player does!!! The player is OOB, by rule. That would mean that the player is NOT legally occuping the spot "on the playing floor" and as such is the responsible party for contact in the original post.

There is no circumstance that I would ever call this play (the OP) an offensive foul. If the foul is on the offense then it will either be INTENTIONAL or FLAGRANT.

Tex, this is the one argument I think does have some merit here - and the only way one could justify calling a block on a stationary player in this situation.

That said, I disagree with that interpretation, and there is no case play that makes the case that a stationary player with a foot on the line is always responsible for contact.

Edit to add: I also want to make the point that your (Texref) case for a block has nothing to do with LGP. That's an important distinction, and why the case play cited most often here doesn't apply here.

That's because I'm still mulling this one over, to be honest. The 4.23.3 point doesn't work, except only as basic precedent. Scrappy is right about the committee's desire to have the game played inbounds.

Here are my thoughts on it.

1. I've never heard anyone consider calling a violation on a player without the ball who steps on the line, regardless of the reason and intent. It's widely agreed that to even consider this violation, the player has to have gone completely OOB; not just step on the line.

2. Therefore, players who step on the line aren't considered to have left the playing court even though they may be considered out of bounds.

If the player is not legally "on the playing floor" then how can he not be responsible for contact?

On a side, a to defend somewhat rwest, my interpretation of the case play being brought up, although it applies to LGP, is the same a rwest in that the player being OOB is what the FED is wanting called. IMO, they used that example b/c that is what we will see 9 times out 10 on the floor during a game. But again, I think the point of it is that the player went OOB, thus not only losing his LGP, but his "spot on the playing floor" as required by rule.

If the player lifts the foot up that is OOB, then he is "on the playing floor" and entitled to that protection. If it remains OOB, he is not legally in a spot "on the playing floor."

By definition of Player Location, if they are touching OOB, they are considered OOB. OOB is not considered to be part of the playing surface. Otherwise why do we call an OOB violation when they just barely touch the line?

First, I don't blame you for not reading everything; my eyes are glazed over even as I'm typing now. But I'll try to help out a TX Rangers fan...

Here's the gist of the arguments - the case play involved is 4.23.3 Sit B: "B1 is called for a blocking foul because <B>a player cannot be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position</B>." So, since it is under the rules section involving Guarding, and the wording in the case play specifically gives the reason for the call is due to LGP, some of us feel that LGP is the main issue, not simply being OOB.

Then are you going to call a violation on A2, when he steps on the baseline under the basket while using a screen?

Or, in the OP, are you going to call the defender for a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason when he steps on the line, inadvertently, while attempting to close the gap between him and the sideline?

? In the scenario is A2 the screener or the one going around the screen? It doesn't make a difference by rule, I realize, just curious. To answer the question though, yes, that is a violation according to the FED, with case plays to back it no?

In the OP, I am calling the block as I don't feel the player left the court intentionally, but he is off the floor and as such is, IMO, responsible for the contact at that point. It's no different than a player who loses track of where they are and they accidentaly go OOB and realize it and come back in. By rule, violation, BUT, by spirit of the rule (didn't gain an advantage), no violation. I did say earlier that I can see the violation call (but I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE CORRECT CALL)and would be a lot more accepting of that over the player control foul. Somebody back on page 5 or 6 though did answer the question about this not being a violation. Sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and find where exactly now. :D

We do not call a violation on a player who steps OOB; I don't know of any competent official who does.

We do, however, call a violation on a player who causes <B>the ball</B> to be OOB: 9-3-1. So, how can a defender, who does not have the ball, be called for a violation?

9-3-2 addresses a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, and the committee has clearly stated that this involves intent. The committee has also clearly stated that plays involving momentum, etc. are allowed. So, if you feel the defender has stepped OOB <B>on purpose</B>, then, by all means, call the violation. But, if there is any doubt on intent, then the defender has only lost LGP, as per 4.23.3 B.

I have yet to see any rules backing for the claim that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact.

I disagree that intent is required here for the violation.
If A2 steps clearly OOB, you have no idea whether he knows he's out or not.
And, frankly, whether he steps on the line or a full foot OOB, his intent is the same. If you think he's intending to skirt around the player by stepping on the line, are you going to call this a violation.
Secondly, lets say the defender (in the OP) purposefully puts his foot on the line to close that gap. Are you going to call the violation?

My point is that if you define the playing court as completely in bounds for purposes of a stationary player being entitled to a spot, then you have to call this violation.

M&M - spot on. Just wanted to add my agreement before I go back to being unproductive for the day...

So a player dribbling the ball who steps on the line is not OOB? That is what I was infereing, sorry I didn't make myself clear.:cool:

How is he not???? Unless the offense INTENTIONALLY or FLAGRANTLY runs them over, the player is not LEGALLY in a spot "on the playing floor?"

Ok, then how would you describe the "intent" of this rule? We all know a player trying to save a ball while falling OOB and ending up there is perfectly acceptable. The player intended to go OOB after making the save, right? Perfectly legal. How about the player who drives hard to the basket for the layup, and knows they aren't going to stop before their momentum carries them OOB after the shot? Again, perfectly legal during normal play.

I'm saying "intent" follows the examples given: player purposely running around a screen, and a player stepping OOB to avoid the 3-sec. call; both involve a direct intent, and both seem to show going completely OOB. A player who is not watching where they are going and steps on the line doesn't seem to follow those examples of intent. Now, if you see the player look down, see they're still in-bounds, and then step on the line to make sure the offensive player can't get by, then that's another story.

Cool. So how can a defender, who does not have the ball, commit a violation?

Simple - by the rule stating he's not.

Which rule is that?

What about the offensive player (without the ball), going around a defender, who steps on the line because there wasn't room to avoid it?

<font size=1>...head...about...to explode...</font size>

You know what. My inner Dan is about to come out and play.

I'm going to lunch.

I may go to the Guiness and Bud Light buffet.

Oy, talk about night and day.

This topic could use a few "Dan-isms" right about now...it gets a little ridiculous after 13 pages. The OP is a specific situation where the defender - who could quite possibly NOT be responsible for intitating the contact - is guilty of a blocking foul due to the fact that they had a foot OOB. Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me.

Rocky, that case play is all about LGP. LGP is lost due to the foot out of bounds; it seems clear to me that this case play does not apply if LGP isn't an issue.

This thread was a revelation to me. Since this adjustment to the rule came out, I was one of those who had been saying if the defender had one foot touching the line, the dribbler could step on his face and the call would still be a block, regardless of how long the defender had been there. The argument that the inbounds thing is a LGP thing is a good one. I was relieved that this had been brought to my attention, and annoyed that it had not occurred to me before. Moreover, I am glad that, to date, I have never made a block call based on the fact that the defender touched the line.

BUT, the thing that I find disturbing is this. In 4.23.3 B apparently the defender does everything right except the fact that he touches the sideline. They make a point of stressing this, I think, when they tell us that it's okay to extend out over the out of bounds area. So the message here that I get is that it's not to much to ask for the defender not to touch the out of bounds area. This is reasonable to me, if plainly stated.

The part that is not absolutely plain to me, is whether this requirement was intended to apply to a stationary defender. If it is not too much to ask for the moving defender to avoid touching the line, it also is not to much to ask for the stationary defender to follow the same guidelines. I would like to see the following case play:

A1 is guarded by B1 in the backcourt. As A1 nears the sideline, B2 leaves his man and they attempt to trap A1 at the division line. B2 sets up at the sideline when A1 is 10 feet away. A1 notices that B2's foot is touching the sideline so he runs straight into B2.

Ruling: PC on A1. LGP does not apply in this situation.

or

Ruling: Blocking foul on B2. B2 is not in a legal defensive position since he is
touching the out of bounds area.

Good call, jar. Some type of explicit ruling would be welcome.

I didn't say he was committing a violation? I said that, BY RULE, he is not legally entitled to the spot that he is standing in. I have never said that I would call the violation against the defender. I've said that I can see that call BEFORE I can see a Player Control Foul.;)

Which rule is it that says he's not?

So, you're saying you can see calling the violation against the defender, BEFORE calling a player control foul?

Again, what rule do you use that dictates calling a violation against the defender?