Block / Charge Situation

[Adam]

No, I'm not arguing the defender had LGP. I'm arguing LGP is not required. Your high school rule citation does not state a stationary defender has to gain and maintain LGP. At the very least, a player with inbounds status is entitled to his spot on the floor whether or not he has LGP. Do you deny this?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, I'm not arguing the defender had LGP. I'm arguing LGP is not required. Your high school rule citation does not state a stationary defender has to gain and maintain LGP. At the very least, a player with inbounds status is entitled to his spot on the floor whether or not he has LGP. Do you deny this?

In order to be guarding you have to have LGP. That is why it is defined in the definition of guarding. It also states in that same rule (definition of guarding) what is required to obtain it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

In order to be guarding you have to have LGP. That is why it is defined in the definition of guarding. It also states in that same rule (definition of guarding) what is required to obtain it.

This is just wrong. You're conflating the idea of guarding, as defined in 4-23-1 with the more specific "Legal Guarding Position" as defined in the rest of 4-23. You're also completely ignoring "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." This comes prior to even a mention of LGP for a reason; it's the primary rule for judging contact.

LGP grants a player the ability to be innocent of contact even if they don't get to a spot first. I've never seen or heard anyone claim a stationary defender has to have LGP.


Consider this play: A1 gets the ball, B1 is between him and the basket with one foot in the air, A1 runs by him and knocks him over before B1 gets his foot down to establish LGP. Both players fall down. What's your call?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is just wrong. You're conflating the idea of guarding, as defined in 4-23-1 with the more specific "Legal Guarding Position" as defined in the rest of 4-23. You're also completely ignoring "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." This comes prior to even a mention of LGP for a reason; it's the primary rule for judging contact.

LGP grants a player the ability to be innocent of contact even if they don't get to a spot first. I've never seen or heard anyone claim a stationary defender has to have LGP.


Consider this play: A1 gets the ball, B1 is between him and the basket with one foot in the air, A1 runs by him and knocks him over before B1 gets his foot down to establish LGP. Both players fall down. What's your call?

No I'm not conflating guarding. As defined it says legally placing themselves in front of the ball handler. I take legally getting there to mean that they are also legal once they get there, so,if the player is STANDING OOB, then that player is not in a spot, wait for it, "on the playing court." In the example you gave, I've got a block. They are both moving and that requires that the defense gets both feet established for LGP. Since you said before he gets his second foot down, easy call. If he had established LGP by getting his foot down then he can move to maintain and whether or not both feet are on the ground is irrelevent, unless 1 foot is OOB!

I'm done with arguing my point. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. We will have to agree to disagree. But I'm right!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

No I'm not conflating guarding. As defined it says legally placing themselves in front of the ball handler. I take legally getting there to mean that they are also legal once they get there, so,if the player is STANDING OOB, then that player is not in a spot, wait for it, "on the playing court." In the example you gave, I've got a block. They are both moving and that requires that the defense gets both feet established for LGP. Since you said before he gets his second foot down, easy call. If he had established LGP by getting his foot down then he can move to maintain and whether or not both feet are on the ground is irrelevent, unless 1 foot is OOB!

I'm done with arguing my point. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. We will have to agree to disagree. But I'm right!

Fair enough, but I'll say that just because B1 has his foot in the air does not mean he's moving. You are the only person I've ever seen or heard argue that a stationary defender requires LGP. I'm done as well, as it appears we can do nothing more at this point than point out Big Ben to the kids.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Fair enough, but I'll say that just because B1 has his foot in the air does not mean he's moving. You are the only person I've ever seen or heard argue that a stationary defender requires LGP. I'm done as well, as it appears we can do nothing more at this point than point out Big Ben to the kids.

I did find this on-line. It is from the MHSAA (Michigan). Look at slides 59 and 60, which appear to be from an NFHS powerpoint that year. Not sure if it proves my point or yours, but I can't find anything else and I don't have my books from that year still.

http://www.mhsaa.com/games/sports/bbb/0304bbbweb.pdf

It has been a fun debate though.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

it appears we can do nothing more at this point than point out Big Ben to the kids.

Well, it's not Big Ben, but it is in Europe. . .

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Well, it's not Big Ben, but it is in Europe.

Please stop tempting me. Five weeks. Not a single image.

[Back In The Saddle]

A real world play. A1 has a breakaway layup. His momentum carries him past the basket and he has one foot on the baseline when he's unceremoniously run over by B1, who came from a different direction to attempt a shot block and whose momentum has also carried him beyond the basket.

Anybody NOT have a foul on B1 here, even though A1 clearly has a foot on the line?