This is one place we (somewhat) disagree. In the case play, LGP definitely applies because that's what the case play is all about. In the OP, LGP only applies if the defender is moving. If the defender is stationary, then a lot of things apply but LGP isn't one of them.

This we agree on 100%.

This we disagree on.

This is simply a false statement.

Other factors we've been talking about (like displacement for example) always apply. LGP simply gives a defender additional rights to move and maintain a position that forces the offensive player to be responsible for contact. But there is no requirement that for a PC foul to be called that a defender facing an opponent has to have LGP.

This is debatable. You can't allow a defender to intentionally leave the playing for to gain an advantage. That's a violation. Also, by definition, a player cannot obtain or maintain LGP while OOB. But I have yet to see anything that says a player can't defend while standing on a line.

Of course a player with LGP can commit a foul. All rules of illegal contact still apply to a player with LGP - LGP just helps define who is responsible for contact.

rule 10 section 1 Art 8 NCAA best describes this
A dribbler shall neither charge into not contact an opponent in the dribblers path not attampt to dribble inbetween two oppnents or between an opponent and a boundry, unless the space is sufficent to provide a reasonable chance for the dribbler to pass through with out contact.

and to conclude the other part of the argument
art 10
when a dribbler has obtained a straight line path, the dribbler may not be crowded out of that path; when an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path the dribbler shall avoid contact by changing direction or ending the dribble.
So the defender in the original OP is legal until that foot goes out OB

Your Honor, move to strike - defendent is submitting facts not already in evidence... ;) I did not say anywhere that there was a flop; in fact, my point is the dribbler saw the defender standing on the line, and purposely ran into the defender, causing enough contact to knock himself over. Iow, the dribbler initiated contact. Why is it still a block?

Let me change the play slightly - A2 is being guarded and being forced on a path toward B1, who is looking at the coach and has one foot on the sideline. A2 sticks out their forearm and knocks B1 out of the way so they can get by. No severe contact, just a simple push off by the dribbler. Are you saying this can <B>never</B> be a player-control foul, because B1 has a foot on the line?

Maybe we've lost track about the discussion. In the OP, I believe we are all assuming the defender is trying to obtain or maintain LGP by stepping into the path of the offense, and at the moment of contact, the defender's foot is on the line - therefore, we all agree it's a block, as per 4.23.3 Sit B. No problem there. I think we also agree that any player is entitled to their spot on the floor, whether or not there is LGP established, if an offensive player initiates contact, correct? Where we disagree is whether the defender's foot being OOB automatically makes them responsible for the contact, even if the defender is stationary. My contention is that the case play states directly the reason for the block is because of "forfeiture" of LGP by being OOB. It does not say the defender has "illegal status" by being OOB. In fact, this is supported by the fact it is part of the "Guarding" section of the rules. So, simply being OOB does not mean that player has forfeited their right to draw a player-control foul. It only means they have forfeited their LGP. That's the difference.

Move to strike denied. You opened the door, councilor. Opposing council is allowed this line of questioning/reasoning. The fact of the matter, your honor, is that the player tried to draw a foul. That is a T'able offense. I've never called it myself, but I've certainly ignored.

Here are the simple facts. The defense is allowed certain movements when defending. One of them however is not standing out of bounds. The case play is clear on that. No where in the case play does it say that the defender is called for a block because he was moving. No where does it say that he was moving. It simply says that the defender was not in LGP because he was out of bounds which is why he was called for a block.

Defense rests!

Man this is fun!

So LGP only applies if the player is moving? Not true. The rule book does not say that. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs. Is a stationary player in LGP if they are standing still and have their arm extended in front of the player moving with the ball? No. Every player has a right to a spot on the "playing floor", but they don't have the right to make it as wide as they want. They are only entitled to their shoulder width. How can you say that LGP doesn't apply to a stationary player? To maintain LGP the "guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, <b> PROVIDED HE/SHE HAS INBOUND STATUS</b>. So a player that is standing still but with one foot out of bounds does not have LGP.

Standing and moving are mutually exclusive states.
Yes it does (say he was moving). How can the defender "stay in the path of A1" without moving?

Exactly...and the reason LGP was relevant to begin with was because the defender was doing something (moving) that, to be legal, requires LGP in the event of contact.

LGP only grants a player the right to move/jump at the time of contact and not be guilty of a foul.
Legal position and Legal Guarding Position are not synonymous. LGP is only relevant in the context of contact with the defender's body,(block/charge) not their arms. What you're describing is illegal use of hands, not blocking.

Yes, the player has LGP, but has committed an illegal use of hands foul....which is not dependant on LGP.

Again, you're mixing blocking and illegal use of hands. Is it a foul, yes, but not a block and not because of the lack of LGP.

Read the definition of what a player who has LGP can do (4-23-3)

After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. ...may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne...inbounds
b. ....not required to continue facing...
c. ...may move laterally or obliquely...
d. ...may raise hands or jump....
e. ...may turn or duck...

Note that ALL of these are movement actions. Having LGP merely allows these actions...that is it.

If the player is stationary (not moving) then they are not doing a (foot in the air moving to a new spot), b (turning away), c (shifting), d (jumping), or e (turn/duck). So, they are not doing anything that required LGP to be legal.

Correct...but a stationary player is not judged using LGP. LGP is only needed to make actions I listed above legal in the event of contact.

No it doesn't say the defender was moving. Here's an example, A1 moves to get around B1. B1 moves obliquely to stay in his path and then STOPS! But his foot is on the line. He no longer has LGP but moved (past tense) to stay in his path. I can make one movement to stay in your path and then stop moving. The ruling in the case play was that the player did not have LGP because he was on the line. Don't you think if they wanted us to call a block because he was moving they would have said so? Besides, one can move and still have LGP. As long as it is not into the player. If movement was the issue the case play would have made it clear that the defender was moving into the player with the ball. That's not why the case play calls for a block. Its because he was on the line. That's why he didn't have LGP. Not because of movement. Its clear the the Case Play is calling a block because the player doesn't have LGP. LGP was lost because he was on the line, not because he was moving.

Not all are movement actions
 

4-23-3-a does not require movement. They are in violation of LGP because their foot is on the line. A stationary player is judged using LGP in this case based on the fact that the case play says that the player was called for a block. Why? Because they did not have LGP. Why did they not LGP? Because they were on the line not because they were moving.

rwest - a simple question: can a defender not have LGP, and an offensive player be called for a player-control foul on contact?

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.