Block / Charge Situation

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In this case, you are unequivocally and completely wrong. B1 is entitled to any spot on the floor...note ANY...as long as they got to that spot legally. Period. Once they are there, they can remain there as long as they like (except for 3 seconds in the lane).

B1 can take any position he/she wants as long as their arms/legs are not extended away from their torso. B1 may have to satisfy time/distance requirements (if they fall to the floor right in front of a moving opponent who doesn't have the ball) but the position itself is not illegal.

I'll agree with you in that out in the open floor this is probably not going to be a block. But my example is dealing with rebounding action around the basket. When A1 goes up for a rebound they are entitled to a landing spot. If they land on B1's unmoving leg and fall to the ground, you have to have a block because A1 is entitled to his spot on the floor too. He has the right to verticality. B1's spot can't occupy A1's spot, which in my example it did.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I'll agree with you in that out in the open floor this is probably not going to be a block. But my example is dealing with rebounding action around the basket. When A1 goes up for a rebound they are entitled to a landing spot. If they land on B1's unmoving leg and fall to the ground, you have to have a block because A1 is entitled to his spot on the floor too. He has the right to verticality. B1's spot can't occupy A1's spot, which in my example it did.

Please read the case play Billy posted above. It's still relevant even though it's not in the book, as it's never been reversed by NFHS.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

I'll agree with you in that out in the open floor this is probably not going to be a block. But my example is dealing with rebounding action around the basket. When A1 goes up for a rebound they are entitled to a landing spot. If they land on B1's unmoving leg and fall to the ground, you have to have a block because A1 is entitled to his spot on the floor too. He has the right to verticality. B1's spot can't occupy A1's spot, which in my example it did.

Woohoo! I get to come back in to the play room. I see I missed all the fun last night.

This particular point addresses an airborne player. In your example, if B1's unmoving leg was there prior to A1 leaving the floor to rebound, then no, it's not a foul on B1. A1 is not entitled to a landing spot that was previously occupied.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Woohoo! I get to come back in to the play room. I see I missed all the fun last night.

This particular point addresses an airborne player. In your example, if B1's unmoving leg was there prior to A1 leaving the floor to rebound, then no, it's not a foul on B1. A1 is not entitled to a landing spot that was previously occupied.

You mean he's not fair game to jump on once he falls to the floor? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You mean he's not fair game to jump on once he falls to the floor? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!

I never said he was! Every player has a right to a spot on the floor including A1 who is going up for a rebound.

And you still haven't answered my question regarding a player setting a screen with his feet outside his shoulders? Is that a legal screen if contact occurs? Or did I miss your answer in all of the posts we've been making.

Also, please site the rule that says LGP is only relevant on a moving player.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I never said he was! Every player has a right to a spot on the floor including A1 who is going up for a rebound.

Sure you did. You said if B1 is lying on the floor, A1 may then jump and land on him and at the same time draw a foul. I say if B1 is there first, A1 is responsible for the contact.

Originally Posted by rwest

And you still haven't answered my question regarding a player setting a screen with his feet outside his shoulders? Is that a legal screen if contact occurs? Or did I miss your answer in all of the posts we've been making.

Nope, not legal, and it's covered under the screening rules. It has nothing to do with LGP.

Originally Posted by rwest

Also, please site the rule that says LGP is only relevant on a moving player.

Already did, 4-23-3 describes how LGP is relevant by describing the additional rights it confers on the one who has LGP.

Furthermore, jdw3018 lays it out well just above.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure you did. You said if B1 is lying on the floor, A1 may then jump and land on him and at the same time draw a foul. I say if B1 is there first, A1 is responsible for the contact.

Nope, not legal, and it's covered under the screening rules. It has nothing to do with LGP.
Already did, 4-23-3 describes how LGP is relevant by describing the additional rights it confers on the one who has LGP.

Furthermore, jdw3018 lays it out well just above.

I never said he could jump on him. Under certain circumstances B1 being on the floor can be a block. I did not make a blanket statment. It depends on time and distance and if the player being defended as the ball or not.

The reason I brought up the screen is because you seem to think the player is entitled to a spot on the floor no matter how large an area. That's just not the case. And rule 4-23-3 does not exclude a stationary player when defining LGP.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

And rule 4-23-3 does not exclude a stationary player when defining LGP.

It would be stupid to exclude a stationary player. Because a stationary player can establish and maintain LGP.

But that's the not the issue. Because, even though a stationary player has LGP, LGP isn't relevant to a stationary player because any protection provided by LGP is already explicitly afforded a stationary player.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I never said he could jump on him. Under certain circumstances B1 being on the floor can be a block. I did not make a blanket statment. It depends on time and distance and if the player being defended as the ball or not.

Really?

Originally Posted by rwest

I'll agree with you in that out in the open floor this is probably not going to be a block. But my example is dealing with rebounding action around the basket. When A1 goes up for a rebound they are entitled to a landing spot. If they land on B1's unmoving leg and fall to the ground, you have to have a block because A1 is entitled to his spot on the floor too. He has the right to verticality. B1's spot can't occupy A1's spot, which in my example it did.

The spot doesn't belong to A1 until he leaves the floor. If B1 is laying there before A1 jumps, the foul is on A1. If not, it's on B1. Do you disagree with any of this?

Originally Posted by rwest

The reason I brought up the screen is because you seem to think the player is entitled to a spot on the floor no matter how large an area. That's just not the case. And rule 4-23-3 does not exclude a stationary player when defining LGP.

jdw again does a spectacular job of explaining this, and I have no desire to try to re-state it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

I never said he could jump on him. Under certain circumstances B1 being on the floor can be a block. I did not make a blanket statment. It depends on time and distance and if the player being defended as the ball or not.

Note that the NCAA has a different take on the "fallen player" -- in NCAA if B1 falls and A1 gets the rebound and trips over B1, it's a foul on B1.

I wish FED would either leave the case play in the book, or issue a "retraction / change" when they take a play out of the book.