1st time ever

[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.

[doubleringer]

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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.

[jdw3018]

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!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by grunewar

4-23 GUARDING
ART. 1 . . . . Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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.

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?

[Adam]

Yes. Time and distance aren't a factor when the player has the ball. PC foul.

[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?

[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?

[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).

[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.)?