Block / Charge Situation

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

STFU.

I couldn't help myself.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by m&m guy

stfu.

I couldn't help myself. :d

rotflmao!

[sseltser]

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)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by sseltser

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)

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!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by sseltser

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)

Yep...traveling

[rwest]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[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.

[Adam]

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.