Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 554744)

What if one of the defender's feet was OOB?

<font size=1>Aw, c'mon, you knew I had to ask.</font size>

Before anyone actually answers this, be sure to read every page of:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...situation.html

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle (Post 554738)

Not entirely true. NFHS 4-23-4 "Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position."

When guarding a (non-airborne) player with the ball, all that is required is for the guard to get to his spot legally first. If he does this, it's his spot. No time or distance required.

There is no legal requirement for a guard to move to maintain LGP. If the guard chooses not to move, he is still entitled to the spot he legally occupied first.

Exactly. If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, then he has not gotten to the spot legally first.

NFHS 4-23 "...A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

If the guard's feet are wider than his shoulders, he has extended his leg. In this situation it would seem that the extended leg is in the path of the opponent.
Obviously a HTBT, but the principles are pretty clear cut I think.

As always, just my $0.02.

Originally Posted by Coltdoggs (Post 554754)

BITS...is the part bolded above out of the NFHS book? I'm just curious. You didn't wrap " " around it so I'm wondering if that is your interp or NFHS interp. If the defender is in his spot, not moving and the offensive player hits him(as noted) how is he extending a leg? He was there in his position....

A lot of guys are in LGP with their feet wider than shoulders applying on ball pressure....I've had plenty of PC calls on the perimeter where the guard was plowed through, moving their feet to stay in front of the ball. I wouldn't necessarily consider feet wider than shoulders not beating a guy to the spot or extending a leg.

I'm just having a hard time with your posting....

As posted, I'm probably going with a no-call and ball OOB.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 554758)

You are correct that a player can have LGP with the feet wider than the shoulders. And the feet being wider than the shoulders doesn't matter if the contact is in the torso...but it does matter if the contact is with the extended limb.

I believe he is only saying that it should be a block (if a foul is warranted) if the feet are wider than the shoulders AND the only contact is with the part of the foot/leg that is beyond the shoulders.

Originally Posted by zebra44 (Post 554776)

There is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

Originally Posted by jeffpea (Post 554726)

imo, can't have a "no call" here....the contact affected the play causing the ball to go out of bounds. gotta have something!

based on what you've described, I'm probably calling a blocking foul. sounds like the defender established legal gaurding position, but did not move to maintain LGP as the offensive player moved. block!

if you don't like the block call, then ask yourself this....did the offensive player create/gain an advantage as the result of his contact w/ the defender? (because that is basically what a charge/offensive foul is, right?...)

Originally Posted by Coltdoggs (Post 554763)

Cam, I agree with what you posted.

As it relates to the OP...I don't see how we can penalize the D if he's stationary, feet wider than shoulders and the contact is created by the ball handler hitting his shoulders even if he had his head and shoulders past the D....which is one major criteria used to determine block/PC. I think the key here is stationary.

Good conversation on this...

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 554744)

What if one of the defender's feet was OOB?

<font size=1>Aw, c'mon, you knew I had to ask.</font size>

Before anyone actually answers this, be sure to read every page of:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...situation.html

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle (Post 554748)

We've got a rope
We've got a tree
All we need is a
Referee.

And you just volunteered. :p

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 554750)

I kinda felt like doing some swingin' tonight.

Hey, wait a minute...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 554758)

You are correct that a player can have LGP with the feet wider than the shoulders. And the feet being wider than the shoulders doesn't matter if the contact is in the torso...but it does matter if the contact is with the extended limb.

I believe he is only saying that it should be a block (if a foul is warranted) if the feet are wider than the shoulders AND the only contact is with the part of the foot/leg that is beyond the shoulders.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 554731)

If the defender is there minding his own business, he can be doing the splits, and if he does not move, it isn't a blocking foul.

Originally Posted by amusedofficial (Post 554835)

Geez. After months of lurking I actually had to register on this one, to ask two questions.

1. What rule refers to "the cylinder that each person is entitled to" This sounds like ESPN-speak.

2. Similiarly, I am unable to find "the rule that says if the contact is not in the torso area of the defender the defender is at fault"

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 554836)

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 554864)

I think JAR is thinking about the case play, which I can't find at the moment :mad: , that says a player who lying on the floor is entitled to that spot and if the dribbler trips over him, it's not a foul on the defender.