Yes it does
 

If LGP does not apply to a stationary defender in SOME instances why is the definition to obtain LGP you must have two feet on the floor and facing your opponent. Because it does in SOME instances apply to a stationary defender. Its right there in black in white.

In some instances yes!
 

If B2 is guarding A2 when A1 drives the lane. If B2 moves to guard A2 but does not have two feet on the floor when contact occurs in the chest then I have a block. Why? Because the defender never had LGP. So yes in that instance he must have LGP to take a charge. To have LGP you must have two feet on the floor facing your opponent. You are mistaken when you make a blanket statement that LGP does not apply to a stationary player. In SOME instances it does. Its in the rule book black and white. To obtain LGP you must have two feet on the floor facing your opponent. That can be as a stationary player or a moving player. That's when LGP begins. You can then move to maintain (NOT OBTAIN) it. You are assuming that LGP only applies to a moving player. It does not. A stationary defender can be called for a block if they have one foot in and one foot out because they do not have LGP in that limited scenario.

It seems like all of you are suggesting that I am saying a stationary player always has to have LGP. I'm not saying that. However, you are making blanket statements that do not apply in all instances.

You are under the mistaken belief that LGP never applies to a stationary defender. It does SOME times.

I have addressed this
 

I have addressed this. Was B1 guarding A2? No! Doesn't need LGP in that instance. A2 can't run him over. I have a charge.

Was he guarding him then turned his back to A2 for a possible rebound? Once you obtain LGP you do not have to continue to face him. Still have a charge.

Your last one could be a block. I would have to see it in real time. But he does not have LGP and if his foot is not down on the ground he is not stationary! You can't have it both ways. This is similar to a classic secondary defender. B2 moves to guard A1 driving to the lane but does not have two feet down when contact occurs in the torso. Block! NO LGP.

Again if LGP on a stationary player is not required, what do you have when B2 moves to guard A2 (never having LGP to begin with) lands with one foot in and one foot out of bounds when contact occurs in the torso? He is a stationary player without LGP. You should have a block. Now if the same thing occurs with both feet in, you have a charge. What's the difference? Hmmm? Let me see? Oh, the stationary player had LGP in one case but not the other. So yes, in SOME cases a stationary defender needs LGP.

You guys are making blanket statements that do not apply in all situations. I am not. I am saying that SOME TIMES A STATIONARY PLAYER NEEDS LGP. The rule book backs me up!

I can agree with this
 

It was the exact argument I made when the new ruling came out. However, a stationary player with one foot in and one foot out doesn't have LGP and for that reason can be called for a block even if the contact is on the torso with the caveat that the offensive player didn't go out of his way to run him over.

But to say a stationary defender never has to have LGP is not correct. In SOME instances it is required.

No, it doesn't. LGP grants the right to move, that's it. Without LGP, there is another rule that should be applied, the right to a spot on the floor.

So, you're saying that in my two scenarios, B1 is guilty of a block only if he's facing his opponent.

Let change them again, to see how you rule.
In my first scenario, B1 lifts one foot just prior to being plowed by A2. He never turns to face A1, but he never leaves his spot on the floor. He merely lifts his foot. Are you saying that he's moving because his foot is in the air?

My issues are:

1. No where does it say a player with a foot on the line has an illegal position on the court.
2. No where does it define "stationary" as having both feet on the floor.


Without this case play, you would be virtually alone in this discussion here, as no where else due the rules come close to implying that LGP is required for a player who is not moving from his spot on the court. The question seems to be whether this case is saying B1's spot on the court is not legal if he's got a foot on the line.

And...
 

And no where does it say that LGP NEVER applies to a stationary player. You can't find it anywhere in the rule book. You are inferring something from what you have read. And I do have this case play to support my position.

LGP allows a player to move but it also can be applied to a stationary player in some instances. Your are confusing two rules.

You and others are inferring that LGP applies only to a moving player because of the title in which the term falls under. But you can guard someone from a stationary position. Therefore it can in LIMITED instances apply to a stationary player. Nothing in the rule book refutes this principle. O

Let me say it again. I would not rule a block on the defender if he is not facing his opponent when he lifts his foot! He has a right to the spot on the floor as you have said. If he has LGP and lifts his foot I still would not necessarily call a block. He can move to maintain LGP. What you and others are failing to differentiate is the difference between obtaining and maintaining LGP. Movement is allow to maintain LGP. However to obtain you have to have both feet on the floor and facing your opponent. That's straight out of the rulebook. And you say it doesn't apply to a stationary player?

I'm going to do what you and others have done and infer from the title. Hey if you can do it so can I :). Based on the phrase Legal GUARDING Position, I am going to infer that LGP applies to a person actually guarding someone. Is B1 guarding A1? No. So LGP doesn't apply.

To end this debate show me in black and white where it says "LGP NEVER APPLIES TO A STATIONARY PLAYER".

If you can't then you are basing it on your interpretation and are inferring from what is written.

I respect you opinion. I just dont agree with it. Also I suspect that we both would come to the same judgment in most of these plays, but just using different logic.

I am not making blanket statements here. You are in saying that LGP never applies to a stationary player.

But honestly, how are you going to rule on this play and using what rule?

A1 has the ball and is running up the court near the sideline. He beats his opponent (B1). B2 is guarding A2 and sees his teammate(B1) has been beaten and moves to guard A1. B2 beats A1 to the spot where contact occurs, however, one foot is in and one foot is out. A1 could not avoid contact. Contact is in the torso.

Block or Charge? What rule are you using?

Block. B2 isn't in a LGP, as they have 1 foot out of bounds.

Nothing says you have to be stationary to obtain. A player could literally be walking, for example, and still meet this requirement.

Being stationary really couldn't be less relevant to LGP.

Oh, and I have a charge on that play. B1 is entitled to his spot on the floor, as long as he isn't moving at contact.

Yes but
 

I agree, however, a player may also be stationary to obtain LGP. Which means LGP is required for a stationary player in this instance.

SITUATION 13: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

Nothing in the above case play or rule requires the player to be moving. The player can also be stationary and stay in the path of A1. Nothing prohibits a stationary player. The rule says you obtain LGP with too feet on the floor and facing your opponent. This can include a stationary player.

In my opinion you are wrong to make a blanket statement that LGP does not apply to a stationary player.

For purposes of this discussion stationary = 2 feet on the floor and not moving.

Nothing says you have to be moving to obtain or that you can only obtain while moving.

Would you not agree that a player who is stationary (both feet in-bounds) with his torso facing the opponent has met the definition of LGP? Would you also not agree that a player who is stationary with one foot out of bounds and one foot in and who did not have LGP before assuming this position still does not have LGP?

Wow. Just wow. Your understanding of LGP is getting even more off base. That is fundamentally just wrong. There is absolutely no requirement that B2's feet be on the floor when contact occurs.
My point is that, while a stationary player may have LGP, they don't need it.A stationary player can have LGP but it doesn't do anything for them. If they are stationary they're not doing anything that LGP permits them to do.

Wow!
 

I have kept this debate civil and now just because you can't prove me wrong you insult my rule knowledge! You have yet to prove that LGP is only required on a moving player. You can't even point to the rule that says so. You even agreed that you were basing that on the context of the rule, which you could be wrong about. The context I mean.

My understanding of LGP is solid. You have made the wrong assumption that LGP is only necessary for a moving player. That is wrong in some cases. The case play noted above for one. The rule book doesn't even say that LGP is only necessary for a moving player. You are inferring that.

Let me try and state this another way. If a stationary player does not have LGP in some instances the defender is more responsible for the contact. Again, my classic example. B2 has obtained LGP against A2 (ie both feet on the floor and torso facing the defender). That is definitely the requirement for obtaining LGP.

Now A1 gets by B1. B2, who has not established LGP on A1, moves to block A1's path up the court. In doing so B2 has one foot in and one foot out. He does not have LGP. B2 is more responsible for the contact. Unless A1 does something like pushing off or a forearm to the head or chest or if A1 could have avoided B2, I have a block on B2. He did not have LGP. In this instance it is required. It is not open season on B2. There are some things that I will still call a foul on A1 for. But in the event that a crash was inevitable and A1 did nothing excessive, I have a block on B2. Why? Because having one foot in bounds and one foot out is not a legal guarding position. We don't officiate in a vacuum. There are many things to take into consideration. However, a stationary player WHO IS PLAYING DEFENSE AGAINST AN OPPOSING PLAYER can be called for a foul because they don't have LGP. In this instance. Not in every instance. Remember, I am the one staying away from blanket statements. That's why the foul is called on B2. Because they did not legally obtained LGP when the contact occurred. How else do you get a block on this play? What rule? There is no rule regarding a defender being out of bounds and being called for a foul for being out of bounds other than the LGP. You can not be out of bounds and play defense. Well you can, but you MAY be called for a foul in doing so. Why? Because of the LGP principle. Does that mean that every foul will be called on the defender in this case? No. But it does put more responsibility on the defender in this case.

While I do not disagree with some of the points you have made in this thread you are completely wrong on this point. Once LGP is established B2 may move to maintain LGP and having 1 foot in the air at the time of contact means nothing.

Don't be surprised if the NCAA (at least the Men's side) comes out with something one day saying they want this to ruled a PC foul b/c B1 never established LGP. I've heard this brought up more than once during my summer endeavors.

We already know that NCAA doesn't look at "every player entitled to his spot on floor" the same as the NFHS does because in the NCAA a player lying prone on the floor is responsible for contact with a ball handler.

No I'm not
 

Once LGP is established you are correct. The foot in the air means nothing. I said that the defender had NOT OBTAINED LGP. Or at least I meant to. The foot in the air when moving to OBTAINED LGP does have some bearing assuming that the foot is still in the air when contact occurred and LGP has not been established.