1st time ever

jdw3018

Pantherdreams wrote
First I assume he tripped over the down player. Ie. Actually contact, not just the player tripping over this own 2 feet trying to make a fancy hop over the downed player.

If it is as a result of contact I'm gonna have to go with the foul. Tough break for the kid who tried to make the hustle play though.

I can't really argue he's established a cylinder from the souls of his feet to the ceiling that extends 6 feet horizontally across the floor. He is entitled to a spot but if he was standing and his feet were set but he was bent at the waist outside his cylinder to make contact with a shoulder or sticking his arms out and clotheslining people it would be a foul. He's way outside any sorted granted space here.

Tough call to make and everyone hates your guts but I'm going with a foul.

If the player is not moving (and even if he is in certain directions) you cannot penalize a player for being on the ground in NFHS.

Verticality (or a 'cylinder') has nothing to do with it.

jeffpea

i'm calling a foul...
1) the contact by the defensive player (who does not have LGP) is what caused the ball handler to fall - that is a foul.
2) the contact interrupted the RSBQ (rhthym, speed, balance, quickness) of the ball handler - that is a foul.
3) after establishing LGP, the defensive player did not move to maintain his LGP - that is a foul.

Pantherdreams

jdw3018 wrote
If the player is not moving (and even if he is in certain directions) you cannot penalize a player for being on the ground in NFHS.

Verticality (or a 'cylinder') has nothing to do with it.

Interesting . .. can't speak for the NFHS we play FIBA. By our rule your initial legal guarding position requires both feet to a planted on the floor. Ten any contact created out side your space until you restablish a new LGP is your foul.

SO for us kid on the floor is not holding a legal guarding position and is responsible for the contact since the offense is entitled to legally take the space he's being tripped in.

jdw3018

jeffpea wrote
i'm calling a foul...
1) the contact by the defensive player (who does not have LGP) is what caused the ball handler to fall - that is a foul.
2) the contact interrupted the RSBQ (rhthym, speed, balance, quickness) of the ball handler - that is a foul.
3) after establishing LGP, the defensive player did not move to maintain his LGP - that is a foul.

1. Contact that causes a player to fall is not always a foul.
2. See one.
3. A stationary player does not need LGP.

jdw3018

Pantherdreams wrote
Interesting . .. can't speak for the NFHS we play FIBA. By our rule your initial legal guarding position requires both feet to a planted on the floor. Ten any contact created out side your space until you restablish a new LGP is your foul.

SO for us kid on the floor is not holding a legal guarding position and is responsible for the contact since the offense is entitled to legally take the space he's being tripped in.

Didn't think about FIBA rules. I obviously have no idea what your rules say. 😀

The NCAA has a clear case play that makes this contact a foul. That is not the case in NFHS, however.

Jurassic Referee

Pantherdreams wrote
Interesting . .. can't speak for the NFHS we play FIBA.

Then why are you? If you're answering questions using FIBA rules, you should say so in your answer. That cuts out the confusion a la posting an incorrect answer for FED rulings like you did above.

The play being discussed is not and never has been a foul under NFHS rules. NCAA rules are different.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketball/57012-player-floor-legal-guarding-position.html

That's just the latest thread. There are numerous other ones on this play, all containing the exact same rules citations. This seems to come up almost monthly..and it ends up being answered the exact same way monthly also.

bob jenkins

jeffpea wrote
i'm calling a foul...
1) the contact by the defensive player (who does not have LGP) is what caused the ball handler to fall - that is a foul.
2) the contact interrupted the RSBQ (rhthym, speed, balance, quickness) of the ball handler - that is a foul.
3) after establishing LGP, the defensive player did not move to maintain his LGP - that is a foul.

LGP has nothing to do with this. Assuming the player on the ground was not moving, s/he is entitled to the spot under FED rules. There's a specific case play or interp on this.

Jurassic Referee wrote
Then why are you? If you're answering questions using FIBA rules, you should say so in your answer. That cuts out the confusion a la posting an incorrect answer for FED rulings like you did above.

In fairness to Pantherdreams, the OP didn't specify a rules set (although the OP is from MI). I agree it would be helpful if all questions / answers specidifed the set; and I agree the Forum usually defaults to FED, then NCAA, then FIBA, then NBA, if not specified.

doubleringer

jdw3018 wrote
.
3. A stationary player does not need LGP.

[/I]

I disagree with this statement. What if a stationary player has one foot on the OOB line and there is contact?

jdw3018

doubleringer wrote
[/I]

I disagree with this statement. What if a stationary player has one foot on the OOB line and there is contact?

Well, in my opinion a stationary player may contact the OOB line and still not be responsible for contact. Others will disagree with that.

It's important to understand when LGP is needed (when a defensive player is moving when contact is made) and when it's not needed (a stationary player).

Think about this...a player is facing away from the ball handler, defending another player. He is standing still. The dribbler runs over him from behind. What do you have?

doubleringer

jdw3018 wrote
Well, in my opinion a stationary player may contact the OOB line and still not be responsible for contact. Others will disagree with that.

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.

jdw3018

doubleringer wrote
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?

doubleringer

jdw3018 wrote
It's important to understand when LGP is needed (when a defensive player is moving when contact is made) and when it's not needed (a stationary player).

Think about this...a player is facing away from the ball handler, defending another player. He is standing still. The dribbler runs over him from behind. What do you have?

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.

jdw3018

doubleringer wrote
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?

Adam

doubleringer wrote
[/I]

I disagree with this statement. What if a stationary player has one foot on the OOB line and there is contact?

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.

Refsmitty

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

Adam

doubleringer wrote
[/I]

I disagree with this statement. What if a stationary player has one foot on the OOB line and there is contact?

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.

jdw3018

Snaqwells wrote
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.

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.

doubleringer

jdw3018 wrote
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.

jdw3018

doubleringer wrote
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.

Adam

doubleringer wrote
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.

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.