Player on Floor Legal Guarding Position

[Freddy]

ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it
is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.
f. The guard may be lying on the floor after having obtained legal guarding position.

Am I correct in maintaining that without something like "f" above (which doesn't exist), lying on the floor does not constitute LGP?

This occurred last night in a GV I was observing: Defender B1 picked up her fifth foul being the one on the floor over which rebounder A1 tripped backwards. The lack of clarity on this exact situation is what led the official to call a blocking foul on B1 and the defender's coach to contest the call.

I'd appreciate further clarification on this, especially the foundational phraseology in the rules or casebook or vanished interps which would expect a travelling violation on A1.

When it happens, I wanna get it right.

Thanx!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it
is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.
f. The guard may be lying on the floor after having obtained legal guarding position.

Am I correct in maintaining that without something like "f" above (which doesn't exist), lying on the floor does not constitute LGP?

This occurred last night in a GV I was observing: Defender B1 picked up her fifth foul being the one on the floor over which rebounder A1 tripped backwards. The lack of clarity on this exact situation is what led the official to call a blocking foul on B1 and the defender's coach to contest the call.

I'd appreciate further clarification on this, especially the foundational phraseology in the rules or casebook or vanished interps which would expect a travelling violation on A1.

When it happens, I wanna get it right.

Thanx!

You're correct, but not completely. A stationary player does not need LGP to be legal. LGP allows them to move, but a stationary player can always hold their spot without fear of a foul.

If the player in the game you observed didn't move once on the floor and the offense tripped, I wouldn't have called it. I have had a partner call a foul on a similar play where the floor-bound defender actually rolled into the offensive player, tripping her.

I believe he caught some heat from table for that one later.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Defender B1 picked up her fifth foul being the one on the floor over which rebounder A1 tripped backwards. The lack of clarity on this exact situation is what led the official to call a blocking foul on B1 and the defender's coach to contest the call.

I'd appreciate further clarification on this, especially the foundational phraseology in the rules or casebook or vanished interps which would expect a travelling violation on A1.

When it happens, I wanna get it right.

The relevant rules citation is found in 4-23-1--"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided that such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

Forget LGP; it isn't relevant in this situation. The cite above is.

Hope that helps....

[vbzebra]

ok, i'm confused, so I'll play devil's advocate for a minute...

A1 is dribbling up the floor and say for the sake of argument, B1 is lying totally still on the floor (or on all 4's, barking like a dog from way back in the day

With B1 lying perfectly still, A1 dribbles and trips over him/her and falls, this would still NOT be a foul on B1? I know LGP is two feet on the floor, torso facing opponent, but I also understand everyone being entitled to their spot on the floor...

I actually had a rebound situation last year happen to me...B1 falls on the floor, A1 gets rebound and turns to go upcourt, trips over B1, falls, I call block (now granted, B1 WAS moving around like a turtle that got flipped on its back, so B1 was NOT totally stationary, which made it easy).

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$, I'm just really trying to understand this. I know if there is even a LITTLE movement by floor-ridden B1, we've got a block. Just trying to grasp the other side of it. sorry

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by vbzebra

ok, i'm confused, so I'll play devil's advocate for a minute...

A1 is dribbling up the floor and say for the sake of argument, B1 is lying totally still on the floor (or on all 4's, barking like a dog from way back in the day

With B1 lying perfectly still, A1 dribbles and trips over him/her and falls, this would still NOT be a foul on B1? I know LGP is two feet on the floor, torso facing opponent, but I also understand everyone being entitled to their spot on the floor...

I actually had a rebound situation last year happen to me...B1 falls on the floor, A1 gets rebound and turns to go upcourt, trips over B1, falls, I call block (now granted, B1 WAS moving around like a turtle that got flipped on its back, so B1 was NOT totally stationary, which made it easy).

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$, I'm just really trying to understand this. I know if there is even a LITTLE movement by floor-ridden B1, we've got a block. Just trying to grasp the other side of it. sorry

If B1 is lying still, he can't be responsible for the foul in NFHS. He's entitled to that spot on the floor and the responsibility is on the dribbler (or any other player) to avoid contact.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

If B1 is lying still, he can't be responsible for the foul in NFHS. He's entitled to that spot on the floor and the responsibility is on the dribbler (or any other player) to avoid contact.

He doesn't even have to be still. B1 falls to the floor. He rolls away from A1 as he attempts to get up. A1 runs over him. This is not a foul on B1.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

He doesn't even have to be still. B1 falls to the floor. He rolls away from A1 as he attempts to get up. A1 runs over him. This is not a foul on B1.

Depends. B1 is now a moving player without LGP, so depending on how contact happens, it may or may not be a foul on B1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Depends. B1 is now a moving player without LGP, so depending on how contact happens, it may or may not be a foul on B1.

If A1 and B1 are in the same path, jar is right. If, however, A1 is airborne and B1 rolls into his path/landing spot....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Depends. B1 is now a moving player without LGP, so depending on how contact happens, it may or may not be a foul on B1.

Note the italicized word. If B1 is moving away from A1, no foul on B1.

[biggravy]

Twist. B1 falls to the floor directly behind A1 not giving him a step. A1 steps back and falls over B1. Illegal screen?

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by biggravy

Twist. B1 falls to the floor directly behind A1 not giving him a step. A1 steps back and falls over B1. Illegal screen?

Yes

4-40-4

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by biggravy

Twist. B1 falls to the floor directly behind A1 not giving him a step. A1 steps back and falls over B1. Illegal screen?

Note sure I'd call it a screen when it is B1...but a block for sure. Screening is typically an action performed by team A.