People will disagree with you becuase it was a rules change not long ago. If a player does not have both feet on the playing floor, they do not have LGP so any contact after that is on them. This is not an opinion matter, it is a rule.

I know the rule, and I think that's been the rule quite a while - a player cannot have LGP while touching OOB. However, LGP isn't required for a stationary player.

And, how about answering my other question?

Sounds to me like the player that got ran over does have legal guarding position.

My point in discussing this is that when we as officials, think of things in terms outside of the rulesbook, we don't have as deep an understanding of what we are doing. We need to strive to always think in things within the context and language of the rules.

If you want to strive to have a deep understanding and think in the context and language of the rules, tell me how the defender in my scenario - in rule book terms - established Legal Guarding Position on the player with the ball if he never faced him?

All the case plays and interps I've seen on this give the foul to the defense because there's no LGP. I don't like that it seems to give a free shot to the offense to run over a stationary defender who happens to have a foot on the line.

The fact is, though, a stationary player is entitled to his position on the floor, so we're left with one option, a player with a foot on the line is not in the spot legally. This explains how we can call a foul on a stationary player for getting run over. I just wish the case play didn't reference LGP for the reasoning.

My bad... I will note NFHS from now on

You know LGP isn't required for a stationary player. There are plenty of plays we could come up with where a player never gains LGP yet can still draw a foul.

I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on the whole "foot on the line" issue, but I still don't see how an offensive player can run over a stationary defensive player...if the offensive player pushes off with his arm is it also a foul on the defender?

I'd love a clear case play from the NFHS on this. If a player touching OOB cannot be fouled, then fine. But I don't like that concept.

Because stationary has nothing to do with it. Think in terms of LGP. A player with a foot on the OOB line does not have LGP, thus any contact not deemed incidental involving that player is a foul on the defensive player. I know it sucks, I don't agree with it, I was taught as a player to put a foot on the OOB line and use it as another defender, but the rule is the rule.

I don't want to think in terms of LGP, because LGP doesn't apply to stationary players.

I want to get away from the OOB issue. It's different entirely...back to my question to you: please explain, in rulebook language (or otherwise for that matter) how a player who never faced the dribbler establishes LGP as you said.

Again, I don't like the fact that they mention LGP in the case play; it's rediculous. Either give the stationary player his spot, or declare that he did not get there legally since he's OOB. But don't claim the lack of LGP is the issue (not you, the case book).

I say this because, LGP is not required anywhere else for a stationary defender.

Could someone with books post the definition for LGP? I don't have mine with at work today. I think it would help move this conversation along. I might be not seeing the complete picture here, but I'd like to read it from the book.

4-23 GUARDING
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard
and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is
entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first
without illegally contacting an opponent. 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.
ART. 2 . . . To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.
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.
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.
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal
position before the opponent left the floor.
ART. 5 . . . Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid
contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.
d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position
before the opponent left the floor.

Yeah, what grunewar said. :)

Now, I have to leave this debate as I'm on the road the rest of the weekend. Have a good one!

Note that this has NOTHING to do with legal guarding position.

And that's why a player that never faced a dribbler can still have a legal position on the court without having a legal guarding position, and be fouled by a dribbbler who runs over that opponent.

The easiest way to call plays like this is to apply screening principles to the dribbler, as we have been directed to do in the COMMENT in case book play 10.6.7.