1st time ever

[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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

.
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]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

[/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]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

[/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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

[/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.