NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you sure about that? How can you tell? When they created the case play in question, it was precisely targeted at defenders stepping OOB on purpose.

So are you saying it is legal for the defender to have one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds?

[OKREF]

I would say that if the defender obtains a position on the court with 1 foot inbounds and 1 foot out of bounds, the defender does not have a legal guarding position, and isn't legally on the court as well. If there is contact then the defender is at fault.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

So are you saying it is legal for the defender to have one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds?

If they put it OOB on purpose, by the literal application of the rules, they have committed a violation the moment it touches OOB and a foul is not technically possible.

If they are guarding an opponent and step OOB (knowingly or not) in an attempt to cut off their path, they do not have LGP and will be called for a block.

If they are not guarding the opponent and are simply there and are not moving, they don't have LGP (per the rule under discusssion) but don't need it. If the offensive player still can't avoid them, I'm not calling a block. They haven't done anything that the rule defines as being a block. The offensive player is not going to get a free foul called against the defender.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If they put it OOB on purpose, by the literal application of the rules, they have committed a violation the moment it touches OOB and a foul is not technically possible.

If they are guarding an opponent and step OOB (knowingly or not) in an attempt to cut off their path, they do not have LGP and will be called for a block.

If they are not guarding the opponent and are simply there and are not moving, they don't have LGP (per the rule under discusssion) but don't need it. If the offensive player still can't avoid them, I'm not calling a block. They haven't done anything that the rule defines as being a block. The offensive player is not going to get a free foul called against the defender.

The only thing I disagree with is that a stationary player does not need LGP. In some cases they do. A stationary player who is guarding an offensive player must start with LGP. They then can move to maintain it. But to say that a stationary player does not require LGP is not accurate per the rule. At least not in all cases.

For example, if B1 is guarding A1, then pivots to guard A2 and in so doing he places his foot out of bounds, B1 is now a stationary player but does not have LGP and is required to have LGP in this case. You can say they are in violation for leaving the court. But only if you judge intent. But the LGP rule is very clear that they have to have two feet on the inbound side of the court. I believe the wording was chosen to indicate that they can't establish LGP with one foot in and one foot out.

[rwest]

A stationary player who is in the act of guarding requires LGP. Do you agree with that statement?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

A stationary player who is in the act of guarding requires LGP. Do you agree with that statement?

I do not.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Adam

I do not.

LGP is a status that applies to both stationary and moving players who are in the act of guarding. The LGP rules states that to obtain LGP a player must have both feet on the court. This applies to a stationary player. If you are a stationary player facing your opponent with one foot in and one foot out of bounds and contact occurs it should be called a block because the stationary player did not have LGP. Out of bounds is not considered being on the court. LGP does apply to a stationary player in some scenarios.

I believe some are getting hung up on what about the player who has their back to an opponent and the opponent crashes into their back. LGP does not apply here because you only need LGP if you are guarding someone. Also, it doesn't apply because the player is entitled to the spot on the floor as long as they got there legally.

Consider this scenario.

B1 is guarding A1. A1 passes to A2 who drives up the court near the side line. B1 switches to guarding A2. When he pivots one foot is in and one is out. It is at this time that he is facing A2. He is not moving. A step later a crash occurs.

Did B1 have LGP? No. Was B1 a stationary player? Yes. What's your call?
I have a block because B1 never had LGP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

LGP is a status that applies to both stationary and moving players who are in the act of guarding. The LGP rules states that to obtain LGP a player must have both feet on the court. This applies to a stationary player. If you are a stationary player facing your opponent with one foot in and one foot out of bounds and contact occurs it should be called a block because the stationary player did not have LGP. Out of bounds is not considered being on the court. LGP does apply to a stationary player in some scenarios.

I believe some are getting hung up on what about the player who has their back to an opponent and the opponent crashes into their back. LGP does not apply here because you only need LGP if you are guarding someone. Also, it doesn't apply because the player is entitled to the spot on the floor as long as they got there legally.

Consider this scenario.

B1 is guarding A1. A1 passes to A2 who drives up the court near the side line. B1 switches to guarding A2. When he pivots one foot is in and one is out. It is at this time that he is facing A2. He is not moving. A step later a crash occurs.

Did B1 have LGP? No. Was B1 a stationary player? Yes. What's your call?
I have a block because B1 never had LGP.

Your entire argument hinges on the mistaken belief that a defender must have LGP in order to draw a charge. You don't even need LGP to be guarding someone. You only need LGP to be moving or jumping when there is contact. That's it.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by rwest

LGP is a status that applies to both stationary and moving players who are in the act of guarding. The LGP rules states that to obtain LGP a player must have both feet on the court. This applies to a stationary player. If you are a stationary player facing your opponent with one foot in and one foot out of bounds and contact occurs it should be called a block because the stationary player did not have LGP. Out of bounds is not considered being on the court. LGP does apply to a stationary player in some scenarios.

I believe some are getting hung up on what about the player who has their back to an opponent and the opponent crashes into their back. LGP does not apply here because you only need LGP if you are guarding someone. Also, it doesn't apply because the player is entitled to the spot on the floor as long as they got there legally.

Consider this scenario.

B1 is guarding A1. A1 passes to A2 who drives up the court near the side line. B1 switches to guarding A2. When he pivots one foot is in and one is out. It is at this time that he is facing A2. He is not moving. A step later a crash occurs.

Did B1 have LGP? No. Was B1 a stationary player? Yes. What's your call?
I have a block because B1 never had LGP.

Block

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rwest

LGP is a status that applies to both stationary and moving players who are in the act of guarding. The LGP rules states that to obtain LGP a player must have both feet on the court. This applies to a stationary player. If you are a stationary player facing your opponent with one foot in and one foot out of bounds and contact occurs it should be called a block because the stationary player did not have LGP. Out of bounds is not considered being on the court. LGP does apply to a stationary player in some scenarios.

I believe some are getting hung up on what about the player who has their back to an opponent and the opponent crashes into their back. LGP does not apply here because you only need LGP if you are guarding someone. Also, it doesn't apply because the player is entitled to the spot on the floor as long as they got there legally.

Consider this scenario.

B1 is guarding A1. A1 passes to A2 who drives up the court near the side line. B1 switches to guarding A2. When he pivots one foot is in and one is out. It is at this time that he is facing A2. He is not moving. A step later a crash occurs.

Did B1 have LGP? No. Was B1 a stationary player? Yes. What's your call?
I have a block because B1 never had LGP.

I have a block because B1 does not have a legal position on the court.
LGP has nothing to do with a stationary defender.

If A2 takes his arm and shoves B1, then I have a player control foul.

The defender can't make a legal basketball play from his location, but opponents cannot whack him just because he has a foot on the boundary line.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

The only thing I disagree with is that a stationary player does not need LGP. In some cases they do. A stationary player who is guarding an offensive player must start with LGP. They then can move to maintain it. But to say that a stationary player does not require LGP is not accurate per the rule. At least not in all cases.

For example, if B1 is guarding A1, then pivots to guard A2 and in so doing he places his foot out of bounds, B1 is now a stationary player but does not have LGP and is required to have LGP in this case. You can say they are in violation for leaving the court. But only if you judge intent. But the LGP rule is very clear that they have to have two feet on the inbound side of the court. I believe the wording was chosen to indicate that they can't establish LGP with one foot in and one foot out.

I don't disagree with what you've said. They can't establish LGP with a foot OOB. But, the ONLY thing LGP does is grant a defender the right to be moving/jumping at the time of contact. If they are not doing any of those things, LGP is irrelevant.