1st time ever

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

How long do I have to be stationary before I no longer need to have a LGP?

B1 has his back to A1 within 6' of A1. A1 dribbles to his right. B1 moves to his right, cutting off A1's path to the basket, but becomes stationary before A1 contacts B1.

B1 never had a LGP as he was never facing A1. B1 moved towards A1 so would have lost LGP even if he had earlier established it. However, B1 was stationary when A1 contacted him.

Is this really a player control foul?

I would use "screening" principles on this (as opposed to "guarding" principles). Thus, if A1 is moving, time and distance are required.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thus, if A1 is moving, time and distance are required.

Even when A1 has the ball?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I would use "screening" principles on this (as opposed to "guarding" principles). Thus, if A1 is moving, time and distance are required.

That makes sense to me. Since he's not facing the player he's not guarding him, but he did set a screen.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even when A1 has the ball?

Having the ball only makes a difference if you are guarding him. To be guarding him, he'd have to have a LGP. Since he doesn't, we use the screening principle to determine if he legally acquired the position.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even when A1 has the ball?

See the "COMMENT" in case book play 10.6.7.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See the "COMMENT" in case book play 10.6.7.

I get the application, but this case play is in the reverse; a player with the ball screening an opponent without the ball (obviously). It really says nothing about a player without the ball and his back turned and screening a ball handler without LGP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It really says nothing about a player without the ball and his back turned and screening a ball handler without LGP.

Disagree. It lays the concept out for you.

In the first sentence of the COMMENT it states that screening principles apply to the dribbler.

The last sentence of the COMMENT states "If both the dribbler and opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops." Iow you have a defender who gained a legal position on the court(without having to establish LGP) in front of the dribbler and in the same path and direction of the dribbler. The defender can now slow down or stop in the dribbler's path, and if the dribbler plows into him, it's on the dribbler.

Pretty clear to me....and it sounds just like what we're discussing.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

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?

Block. That is a different play.

That is entirely different than B2, trying to stay with A2 and falling, then A1, coming along later and well after B2 fell, tripping over B2.

B2 doesn't have LGP, but B2 doesn't need it when they were there "first".

Conceptially, it could be thought of as if B2 is always allowed a spot if they give time/distance even if they don't have LGP. But, if they do have LGP, they don't need to give time/distance. (not explicit in the rules but basically what the cases and rules around these situations resemble)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

I disagree here. LGP enables the privilege of verticality, not just legally being in a spot. A player without LGP doesn't get verticality.

RULE 4...
The basic components of the principle of verticality are:

ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal.

A player laying on the floor may have a spot legally but it is not LGP.

As such, any contact caused while the player is moving will be a block.

[BillyMac]

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.

I hate it when that happens. Seriously.