Block / Charge Situation

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

and LGP does apply

Hold on a second!

I want to make sure I'm following - I was under the impression that you felt a LGP case should apply to a non-LGP situation because there wasn't a specific non-LGP case. But from your quote above, it appears that you're saying that LGP applies to all these situations? Is that right?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Hold on a second!

I want to make sure I'm following - I was under the impression that you felt a LGP case should apply to a non-LGP situation because there wasn't a specific non-LGP case. But from your quote above, it appears that you're saying that LGP applies to all these situations? Is that right?

In the OP and the case play, LGP applies. The other cases that have been mentioned alter the scenario enough for other rules to take effect. A player who is on the playing court with his back to A1, is not defending A1. They are entitled to their spot on the floor and can not be displaced. These facts don't apply to the OP. The player was defending A1 and as such has to be in LGP. The player was out of bonds. The other scenario involved a player attempting to get a foul called by flopping. Again this is a different scenario.
You can't give the defense the right to stand out of bounds and allow them to play defense. A stationary player with LGP is protected but a stationary player can still be called for a foul. B1 is stationary and is facing A1. B1's legs are more than shoulder width apart. A1 goes around B1, but trips over B1's foot. What do you have?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

In the OP and the case play, LGP applies.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

A player who is on the playing court with his back to A1, is not defending A1. They are entitled to their spot on the floor and can not be displaced.

This we agree on 100%.

Originally Posted by rwest

These facts don't apply to the OP.

This we disagree on.

Originally Posted by rwest

The player was defending A1 and as such has to be in LGP.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

You can't give the defense the right to stand out of bounds and allow them to play defense.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

A stationary player with LGP is protected but a stationary player can still be called for a foul.

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

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, PROVIDED HE/SHE HAS INBOUND STATUS. So a player that is standing still but with one foot out of bounds does not have LGP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

So LGP only applies if the player is moving? Not true. The rule book does not say that.

LGP only grants a player the right to move/jump at the time of contact and not be guilty of a foul.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

How can you say that LGP doesn't apply to a stationary player?

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

To maintain LGP the "guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, PROVIDED HE/SHE HAS INBOUND STATUS. So a player that is standing still but with one foot out of bounds does not have LGP.

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.