The point that you made that betrays the conclusion you're trying to make is " It's also my feeling the elbow by Blue #1 needed to be dealt with regardless of what was or wasn't called on White #22. " That statement is inconsistent with the rest of your argument. This statement says you think the elbow was an intentional foul. But then you don't call it an intentional foul. You can't have it both ways.

And I've yet to figure out how a player who went over his opponents shoulder and leg to get to the ball and to get into a position to be contacted by an elbow got to the spot first. He was late to the spot...not really even close. Do you normally allow defender the privilege of climbing over their opponents shoulders to get to the ball? I guarantee you that if the elbow element were removed from this play, you and nearly everyone else would have a defensive foul. The elbow is a red herring.

So this all boils down to how we're judging White #22's actions more than anything else. For me it doesn't appear as though he climbed over Blue #1's shoulders or went through Blue #1 so I move on to the next part of the play. For you, everything pretty much stops at the moment Blue #1 and White #22 come together. That's cool. All I'm saying, and have been saying, is for me this is a foul on Blue #1. Not a no call and not a foul on White #22 for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the paragraph.

You're right...the elbow makes a difference. I said that in my very first post back on page 1. If he doesn't shoot the elbow into the defender's chest I do what the game officials did and let play continue.

Not necessarily. The only player who is disadvantaged by this contact at all is #22 white. If he's responsible for the contact, a no-call is absolutely proper. We no-call all the time when the disadvantaged player was the guilty party.

If, as you stated, you need to deal with that elbow regardless of what is called on white, then by definition you have an intentional foul. If you have a foul on #22 white, then any call on blue would be ignored unless it's intentional.

But as I said I didn't have anything on #22.

Though a call on #22 could make the circumstances surrounding the elbow different in the following manner: With no call on #22 it could be considered a garden variety PC/TC foul. If there's a call on #22 it could be looked at as an retaliatory measure, in which case a technical could be warranted for the intentional contact.

Again, I said it could. for me it isn't since I didn't have anything on #22.

Then you still have to go with an intentional on blue if you think it's something that couldn't have been ignored regardless of what was called on #22.

If it couldn't be ignored during a dead ball, then it's an intentional personal foul during a live ball. If it wouldn't warrant an intentional foul during a live ball, then it has to be ignored during a dead ball.

IOW, you can't say you would have to call the elbow regardless of whether the ball is live or dead and call a PC. That statement boxes you in to either an IPF or ITF. PC just isn't an option.

No it is the elbow that caused him to go to the floor and not having LGP does not give the offense a pass on contact.

This still does not exonerate
 

None of that gives the offensive player the right to elbow the defender out of the way, which is what happened. The elbow caused the player to go down.

Not a Red Herring
 

Ah, but you can't remove it from the play. It is what in my opinion caused the displacement.

Dead ball displacement is irrelevant unless intentional. And the elbow didn't cause the displacement, the player was contorted sideways before the elbow came up.

a few things
 

1. White 22 does not go over Blue 1's shoulder. Blue 1 does beat him to the spot, but White doesn't go through or over his shoulder. His arm is in front of Blue 1 and makes marginal contact with his bicep. No foul. Blue 1 is not disadvantage in any way.

2. Some are placing way too much emphasis on LGP. LGP is important and I am not minimizing it. But you can't ignore the elbow of Blue 1 because White 22 does not have LGP.

3. LGP and the right to a spot on the floor are mutual exclusive. I can have a right to a spot on the floor but may not be guarding you. That does not give you the right to displace me just because I don't have LGP. I am not saying the White 22 beat Blue 1 to the spot. Just making a point that I believe needs to be made.

You are correct if there is a dead ball. There wouldn't be in my opinion because white 22 did nothing to foul blue 1. We disagree on the elbow. I've already gone into the physics. However, let me add one thing. The way White 22 fell is due to the elbow not the hip. He would not have fallen the way he did without the elbow.