1st time ever

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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.

That statement is fundamentally wrong. You seem to not have an understanding of what LGP means and what it implies.

If and only if the foul depends on the defender having LGP does this rule matter....as it only declares the player to not have LGP while having a foot OOB. However, what it does not say is that a defender is responsible for all fouls by being OOB....only that they've lost LGP. If the foul doesn't depend on LGP, being OOB is irrelevant.

Most of the relevant cases will, however, involve a defender needing LGP as they're usually actively guarding the offensive player, but that doesn't make the rule cover the other cases.

Put simply, being OOB means no LGP. If the contact is such that LGP is needed to be legal, defensive foul, otherwise, judge the contact without regard to where the player is (OOB).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

The reason it mentions LGP is because LGP status is the whole basis for the ruling. The underlying rule that was changed to cover this was the LGP rule....requiring an inbounds status to have LGP. That is it. It is entirely about LGP.

The case play in question doesn't have a stationary defender....so LGP is what it is all about.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The reason it mentions LGP is because LGP status is the whole basis for the ruling. The underlying rule that was changed to cover this was the LGP rule....requiring an inbounds status to have LGP. That is it. It is entirely about LGP.

So a player standing still, with a foot on the line, is still legal as long as he isn't moving? IOW, he can still draw a charge?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.



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.

Bob,

What case play number or interpretation are you referring to?

Thanks!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That statement is fundamentally wrong. You seem to not have an understanding of what LGP means and what it implies.

I agree, and my experience of discussing "player on the floor" cases is that officials seem to think that the ONLY way to avoid being called for a foul is having LGP.

How do we correct this bit of misinformation? I'm looking for a snippet: something on the order of, "LGP isn't relevant when the defender is stationary."

Any others (please don't include, "learn the rule, dufus!" etc.)?

[Pantherdreams]

So does this mean . . . hehehehe . . . that players can become ottoman like obstacles to run plays ressembling something you would see in a three stooges skit.

A1 is being defended by b1. A2 comes across the floor and takes up position on their hands and knees.

A2 attacks and b1 gets submarined by a waiting A2 . . . this isn't a foul???

I know I'm being ridiculous but that just doesn't seem right!

I can't wait to see the next press that gets broken by the ball handler hudrdling down teammates so the on the ball pressure can't stay in front.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

Bob,

What case play number or interpretation are you referring to?

Thanks!

Now that I think about it, this might be a case that was removed without comment a couple of years ago.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Now that I think about it, this might be a case that was removed without comment a couple of years ago.

Until I see a case play or rules interpretation I will have to disagree with the majority on this based on my interpretation of the rule book. The rule book, just as any written document, is open to interpretation. Here's some points to consider.

1. The rule book does not define how large a spot a player is entitled to. To say that lying on the floor is legal because you are entitled to a spot on the floor is interpreting the rule book to allow for this. I'm not saying it's wrong just that that is one interpretation. The rule book doesn't say this is legal but it also doesn't say it is illegal.

2. There are rules that imply that there is a limit to the size of the spot on the floor a player is entitled to. For instance, in setting a screen you are not allowed to set your screen wider than your shoulder. Even if you are stationary, you can be called for a foul because you set up to wide. Also, you can't extend your arms, hips or shoulders into the path of a player. If contact occurs you can be called for a foul, even if you are stationary.

3. Stationary players can be called for a foul, as shown above. Why? Because they are not entitled to as large as a spot on the floor as they would like.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

So does this mean . . . hehehehe . . . that players can become ottoman like obstacles to run plays ressembling something you would see in a three stooges skit.

A1 is being defended by b1. A2 comes across the floor and takes up position on their hands and knees.

A2 attacks and b1 gets submarined by a waiting A2 . . . this isn't a foul???

I know I'm being ridiculous but that just doesn't seem right!

I can't wait to see the next press that gets broken by the ball handler hudrdling down teammates so the on the ball pressure can't stay in front.

And I'd agree with you. There has been commentary that this sort of play is not basketball and is not considered legal. But it doesn't come from the principles of LGP. It is viewed as a deliberate act that is also dangerous and unfair and will be called as a foul. It is completely different than a player making a legitamate play and stumbling, tripping, or falling to the floor after which their is contact.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And I'd agree with you. There has been commentary that this sort of play is not basketball and is not considered legal. But it doesn't come from the principles of LGP. It is viewed as a deliberate act that is also dangerous and unfair and will be called as a foul. It is completely different than a player making a legitamate play and stumbling, tripping, or falling to the floor after which their is contact.

Here's a play for you....

A1 dribbling up the court. B1 is running beside A1 and tries to strip the ball. In the process B1 stumbles and falls in front of A1. A1 trips over B1. What do you have?

By the way, I believe the OP got the call correct. I don't believe anytime there is contact with a player on the floor that it is a foul on said player. In the OP, we have a lose ball and they ended up on the floor going for the ball. If the player didn't move then there is no foul in my mind. The travel call would be the correct call.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by rwest

Until I see a case play or rules interpretation I will have to disagree with the majority on this based on my interpretation of the rule book. The rule book, just as any written document, is open to interpretation. Here's some points to consider.

1. The rule book does not define how large a spot a player is entitled to. To say that lying on the floor is legal because you are entitled to a spot on the floor is interpreting the rule book to allow for this. I'm not saying it's wrong just that that is one interpretation. The rule book doesn't say this is legal but it also doesn't say it is illegal.

2. There are rules that imply that there is a limit to the size of the spot on the floor a player is entitled to. For instance, in setting a screen you are not allowed to set your screen wider than your shoulder. Even if you are stationary, you can be called for a foul because you set up to wide. Also, you can't extend your arms, hips or shoulders into the path of a player. If contact occurs you can be called for a foul, even if you are stationary.

3. Stationary players can be called for a foul, as shown above. Why? Because they are not entitled to as large as a spot on the floor as they would like.

You have established a interesting premise.

The player with the ball willingly stepped over a horizontal player thus losing his balance and falling to the floor with the ball. Unless, this play happened in a restricted area on the court (corners' close to sidelines; or endlines some place). Then, I would go with the travel too.

B could have taking a different path besides stepping directly over A.

[Adam]

In your play, it's pretty safe to assume B1 is still moving when A1 trips; easy foul.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In your play, it's pretty safe to assume B1 is still moving when A1 trips; easy foul.

He's entitled to his spot on the floor and he beat A1 to that spot and there is no time and distance required when defending the player with the ball.

Now, I'm calling a foul, but based on what has been posted, many should call a travel if they really believe what they have said. Everything is there: LGP, spot on the floor, no time or distance required for a player with the ball.

[rwest]

Assuming the OP but make one minor correction. Lets say B1 is attempting to get up when A1 trips over them. Are you going to call a foul? If you do then might I suggest if you believe B1 is entitled to lay prone on the ground then you also have to give him that spot on the floor all the way to the ceiling due to the principle of verticality. A player is allowed to move vertically from his spot on the floor.

Now I would have a foul, becuase I don't believe that player is entitled to that spot. Now if he doesn't move, then I have a travel, because the offensive player initiated the contact. A1 didn't have to attempt to go over B1 laying on the ground. He chose to and he is the one that caused the contact.

Remember, when interpreting any document you must take the entire document into consideration. If the player is entitled to lay prone on the floor then they are entitled to verticality from that same spot to the ceiling.

[Loudwhistle]

A1 dribbling up the court. B1 is running beside A1 and tries to strip the ball. In the process B1 stumbles and falls in front of A1. A1 trips over B1. What do you have?

Block