Am I entitled to my spot?

[rsl]

By rule, I see you are correct. That is a tough one to get my head around. I'm not seeing exactly what extra advantage LGP gives the defender.

In the OP, suppose B2 with back to A1 jumps just before A1 hits him. A1 still initiates the contact and B2 just happened to be airborne at the time. Now it is a block because B2 does not have LGP?

[Adam]

The extra advantage is that the defender is allowed to be moving sideways when the contact occurs and still not be held responsible for the contact. This is tough because a lot of people don't realize he can do this when he does have LGP. You're right, too, about going airborne. The player has voluntarily given up his spot "on the playing court" when he didn't have the protections afforded with LGP; even if he had no idea. This is how I understand it, anyway.

[rsl]

Thanks, I think I understand. This is subtle, but I think I understand. I am pretty certain most coaches don't get the subtle part!

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rsl

By rule, I see you are correct. That is a tough one to get my head around. I'm not seeing exactly what extra advantage LGP gives the defender.

In the OP, suppose B2 with back to A1 jumps just before A1 hits him. A1 still initiates the contact and B2 just happened to be airborne at the time. Now it is a block because B2 does not have LGP?

B1 is entitled to his spot on the floor - and has vertical protection as well. He's allowed to jump and come back down in that spot. So, again, LGP doesn't factor in.

LGP basically allows a defender to move any direction but towards a ball handler. If contact occurs in the torso while a defender is maintaining LGP, even if he/she is moving at the time of that contact, the responsibility of that contact is on the dribbler.

If, on the other hand, a player without LGP is moving laterally, for example, the contact is the responsibility of the defender. The way I like to think about it is that if both players arrive to a spot simultaneously, a defender with LGP is going to get the call if the contact is in the torso, while a defender without LGP is responsible for contact when simultaneously arriving at a spot.

If one or the other is to a spot first, then LGP doesn't apply.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The extra advantage is that the defender is allowed to be moving sideways when the contact occurs and still not be held responsible for the contact. This is tough because a lot of people don't realize he can do this when he does have LGP. You're right, too, about going airborne. The player has voluntarily given up his spot "on the playing court" when he didn't have the protections afforded with LGP; even if he had no idea. This is how I understand it, anyway.

Snaqwells, don't you agree that a player has a right to his vertical space? In other words, as long as a player jumps vertically he still has a right to return to his spot on the floor without being displaced?

[Adam]

jd, I'm looking but can't find the rule reference for your first sentence. Help?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Snaqwells, don't you agree that a player has a right to his vertical space? In other words, as long as a player jumps vertically he still has a right to return to his spot on the floor without being displaced?

It makes sense, but I'm unable to find a rule reference to support it.

[jdw3018]

Interesting...I'm reading 4-45, and 4-45-1 notes that LGP must be obtained first before verticality applies.

Fascinating. Learned something new today.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Time and distance are never a factor when defending the player with the ball. Ever.

I agree, but B2 was not defending A1.

4-24-4a says

ART. 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.

This does not necessarily apply when B2 is not defending A1. Is there another rule that applies to an inadverdent collision, or a collision caused by the ball carrier?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It makes sense, but I'm unable to find a rule reference to support it.

4-45

Pretty cut and dry. You're entitled to your vertical space given you've established LGP. That means above and below.

[rsl]

Never mind- Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. It doesn't say anything about knowing you are guarding when you are guarding.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rsl

I agree, but B2 was not defending A1.

4-24-4a says

ART. 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.

This does not necessarily apply when B2 is not defending A1. Is there another rule that applies to an inadverdent collision, or a collision caused by the ball carrier?

The only rule governing a collision where LGP is not involved is that players are entitled to their spot on the floor.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by fiasco

4-45

Pretty cut and dry. You're entitled to your vertical space given you've established LGP. That means above and below.

Appears so. I have always operated under the impression that a player is entitled to verticality regardless of LGP. Apparently not true unless I'm missing something.

[Jurassic Referee]

See NFHS rule 10-6-7--"A dribbler shall neither charge into or contact an opponent in his path...."

Note the word "opponent". Also note that it is assumed that the opponent has taken a legal position on the floor, as per 4-23-1. LGP is not a factor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

4-45

Pretty cut and dry. You're entitled to your vertical space given you've established LGP. That means above and below.

That's what I was saying, so thanks. "given you've established LGP."