Block / Charge Situation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... or to defend it. I'd like to see either.

It's no longer there, but if you look in an older case book, you'll find it. It's never been reversed; just removed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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!

[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.

[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.