What do you have?

[bainsey]

I must confess that I'm struggling with a travel call here.

Here's my rationale: If contact causes a travel, I will have a foul, unless the defender had LGP. (That is, ball handler runs into defender, who's guarding legally.) I don't see how anyone on the floor could have LGP. Nobody intends to guard from down there.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I must confess that I'm struggling with a travel call here.

Here's my rationale: If contact causes a travel, I will have a foul, unless the defender had LGP. (That is, ball handler runs into defender, who's guarding legally.) I don't see how anyone on the floor could have LGP. Nobody intends to guard from down there.

It's simple, a stationary player doesn't need LGP. Thus no foul in HS if he's not moving. College considers it an illegal position, thus a foul.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I must confess that I'm struggling with a travel call here.

Here's my rationale: If contact causes a travel, I will have a foul, unless the defender had LGP. (That is, ball handler runs into defender, who's guarding legally.) I don't see how anyone on the floor could have LGP. Nobody intends to guard from down there.

LGP has nothing to do with it. It is possible for a player to not have LGP and be innocent of contact between himself and a player in control of the ball. Each player is still entitled to his space on the floor and there is no provision requiring that player to be on his feet.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Welpe

LGP has nothing to do with it. It is possible for a player to not have LGP and be innocent of contact between himself and a player in control of the ball. Each player is still entitled to his space on the floor and there is no provision requiring that player to be on his feet.

Good point, as is Snaq's.

I suppose a better way for me to say it is, if contact causes a travel, and it's contact that I'd otherwise rule as incidental, I can't anymore, because the contact has caused a violation. Someone on the floor causing someone to travel is a foul, in my mind.

I guess I'm just a bigger believer in the college application. In the meantime, though, that hardly matters.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good point, as is Snaq's.

I suppose a better way for me to say it is, if contact causes a travel, and it's contact that I'd otherwise rule as incidental, I can't anymore, because the contact has caused a violation. Someone on the floor causing someone to travel is a foul, in my mind.

I guess I'm just a bigger believer in the college application. In the meantime, though, that hardly matters.

Contact determined to be incidental isn't necessarily so because it didn't cause the opponent a disadvantage. Sometimes, contact is simply legal. In this case (NFHS), this contact is defined to be legal because the player had a legal position on the court and was not moving at the time of contact.

Note that a legal position on the court is NOT the same as legal guarding position. There are many instances of a player having a legal potion while not having legal guarding position. The only things LGP add is the ability to be moving/jumping/verticality at the time of contact.

Think of contact with a hand which is in contact with the ball.....it is also incidental by rule, not because it didn't affect the play.