Block / Charge Situation

[BillyMac]

"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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Darnitall, BM and Snaqs, you stole my thunder.

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Darnitall, BM and Snaqs, you stole my thunder.

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rwest

Over the back is not a foul.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

Then please post it. The case we're discussing doesn't prove your point. You're misunderstanding its point.

Originally Posted by rwest

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?

Not unless the player is moving.

Originally Posted by rwest

So there are times when it is necessary.

Absolutely. When the defender is guarding while moving.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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