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.