Am I entitled to my spot?
 

Legal guarding position is defined, generally speaking, as two feet on the floor and facing the opponent. In addition every player has a right to a spot on the floor provided the player gets there first (4-23). Who commits the foul when those two statements conflict with each other.

Sit 1: B2 is guarding A2 along the lane line, facing the basket, and moving towards the endline. A1 has the ball on the wing, and is driving to the basket. B2 with back to A1 steps into A1's path before A1 leaves the floor for a shot. B2 is not facing A1. A1 crashes into the back of B2. If a foul is to be called, who would get it? B2 has his right to the spot, he's not even trying to be a defender of A1, but he got to the spot first.

Sit 2: Same situation as above, but now say B2 is trying to be the secondary defender. This clearly would be foul on A1, as B2 has 2 feet on floor and facing opponent.

Sit 3: B2 is somewhere between facing and not facing A1 when the contact occurs.

My inclination is to call a charge in both cases 1&2, yet a block in 3 since he is not facing A1. I am struggling with these scenarios right now, and would like some guidance in how to determine what takes precedence, legal guarding or right to a spot.

Hope I have been clear in the descriptions.

The statements aren't meant to be contradictory, but complimentary. A player is always entitled to his/her spot on the floor if they got there legally. A lack of LGP does not mean they should be charged with the block, it only means they aren't entitled to the additional rights that come with having LGP. Namely, they can't be moving laterally upon contact.

All three of your situations are PC calls, if anything.

If B1 is stationary at a spot, LGP is not relevant. Only two things are relevant at that point:

First, is whatever contact occurs a foul?

If the answer is yes, then the secondary question is asked: is an airborne player is involved, and if so did B1 reach the spot before the airborne player A1 became airborne? If not, foul on B1. If so, PC foul on A1.

If there is not an airborne player involved, then displacement of B1 is a PC foul regardless of which way B1 is facing. It cannot be a block (unless B1 is outside vertical plane/makes illegal contact with arms/legs, etc).

Doesn't this mean B2 doesn't have LGP? 2nd criteria for LGP is never met... "The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent."

Block in all three. Or am I missing something?

First off, this is not correct. You left off the very first word: Initial. Then, once a player has obtained initial LGP (by starting with 2 feet on the floor and facing the opponant), then they can follow 4-23-3, which describes all of things they can do after initial LGP was obtained: including things like being airborne, not facing the opponent, and turning or ducking to avoid or absorb immenent contact.

Agreed.

First, you must determine if they are guarding, as per the description in 4-23. If they are, then there are certain limitations involved, especially if the player they are guarding has the ball or not. If they are not guarding that player, then they are simply entitiled to the spot on the floor, provided they get to the spot first. They just cannot have the other entitlements involving actively guarding.

Yep, the word "initial". (See above.)

Yep, you're missing the fact that LGP isn't required to draw a PC foul when the defender is stationary. LGP grants certain rights that aren't otherwise present.

You're really going to call a block on B2, standing still, just because he's guarding someone else when he gets ran over by A1?

Important note that many miss: Legal Guarding Position isn't required for a PC foul in all instances. It's only a factor when the defender is moving laterally, obliquely, or backwards when the contact occurs.

If the defender is stationary before contact (and before a player becomes airborne) then LGP doesn't apply/matter.

A player without LGP may also be moving and still draw a PC foul.

Huh? I didn't know we were required by rule to tell coaches they have on a nice tie tonight....:D

It's not required, but it never hurts to notice her shoes.

Wait, wrong <strike>web site</strike> thread; never mind.

You trying to get this thread deleted too?

No, when I think about it obviously not. I guess I just am not sure if I've ever seen this happen.

Makes sense. Thanks for the help.

Is it true that

- When a defender with LGP moves laterally and contacts a player with the ball, time and distance are not a factor

- When a defender without LGP moves laterally and contacts a player with the ball, time and distance are factor

Do I have this right? No time time or distance is one of the perks of LGP?

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

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

4-45

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

So, what about an airborne opponent without position on the floor and without LGP?

If the opponent has established a legal position on the court and now jumps, you use the "verticality" principles outlined in 4-45. And don't get hung up on 4-45-1 which says that LGP must be established. We already know that isn't true in all cases. Example----> rebounding. The principles of verticality do apply to rebounding but the principle of LGP does not. So, you now use 4-45-2,4,5&6 to determine if the defender with a legal floor position but no LGP is airborne legally within his vertical plane. That's true for the situation being discussed as well as rebounding action.

Iow, you gotta put a bunch of rules together to come up with the answer that the defender's play was legal.

JR,
This officiating stuff is really confusing. I think I am going back to coaching 100% of the time. :)