NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[rwest]

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

[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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by rwest

And before someone makes the argument about a stationary player with his back to the offense that never had LGP, the answer to that is that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor as long as they got there legally. Also provided that spot is on the floor. Not out of bounds on live ball action.

I think the important thing to remember in the "defense with one foot OB" situations is that it should be treated - in some cases - similarly to the restricted area in NCAA rules. The rules and cases are there for ruling on block/charge calls. But it doesn't mean it's open season on that B player.

(Also, I just skimmed on the way here, so if this is not at all relevant, please disregard. )

[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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

LGP has nothing to do with a stationary defender.

You have to have LGP to start a five second count, and during a five second you could be stationary, so it would apply to a stationary defender. You have to be within 6 feet and be in a legal guarding position.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

You have to have LGP to start a five second count, and during a five second you could be stationary, so it would apply to a stationary defender. You have to be within 6 feet and be in a legal guarding position.

You are talking about the requirement for a "closely guarded count/violation." True, that violation requires the defender to obtain LGP AND be within six feet.

I am commenting simply on a defender. A player can be a defender an stand sideways without moving, never obtaining LGP, and still has a right to not get fouled by an opponent. However, he lacks certain other rights. You have named one of them--closely guarded. The defender cannot cause the closely guarded count to be enacted. This defender also does not have the right to be moving laterally or obliquely at the time of contact. Both of those are additional rights that a defender earns after obtaining LGP.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are talking about the requirement for a "closely guarded count/violation." True, that violation requires the defender to obtain LGP AND be within six feet.

I am commenting simply on a defender. A player can be a defender an stand sideways without moving, never obtaining LGP, and still has a right to not get fouled by an opponent. However, he lacks certain other rights. You have named one of them--closely guarded. The defender cannot cause the closely guarded count to be enacted. This defender also does not have the right to be moving laterally or obliquely at the time of contact. Both of those are additional rights that a defender earns after obtaining LGP.

Agreed...My thought on OOB and contact. If the defensive player is straddling line, they do not have legal guarding position, and aren't legally on the court, therefore in my opinion the offense can't be charged a foul if contact occurs. Just my thought, not saying I am absolutely right either, just my interpretation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Agreed...My thought on OOB and contact. If the defensive player is straddling line, they do not have legal guarding position, and aren't legally on the court, therefore in my opinion the offense can't be charged a foul if contact occurs. Just my thought, not saying I am absolutely right either, just my interpretation.

I would agree as far as a normal basketball play is concerned. What an official cannot allow is for an offensive player to shove, elbow, punch, or kick such an opponent. Player safety is paramount and it is not open season on the opponent simply because that individual has a foot OOB. That is the point which Camron Rust keeps trying to make.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would agree as far as a normal basketball play is concerned. What an official cannot allow is for an offensive player to shove, elbow, punch, or kick such an opponent. Player safety is paramount and it is not open season on the opponent simply because that individual has a foot OOB. That is the point which Camron Rust keeps trying to make.

Oh yea, totally agree with that. All of those are non normal contact examples.

[Adam]

B1 in the lane guarding A2. As A2 drives into the lane, he runs over a stationary B1, still facing away.

What's your call?

What if, at the last second, B1 spins around on one foot, now actively guarding A1. He doesn't get his other foot down before A1 plows over B1, who is stationary.
Call?

LGP does not apply to a stationary defender.

I can't find where it says a defender with a foot on the line doesn't have a legal position on the court, only that he doesn't have LGP. There's a difference.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would agree as far as a normal basketball play is concerned. What an official cannot allow is for an offensive player to shove, elbow, punch, or kick such an opponent. Player safety is paramount and it is not open season on the opponent simply because that individual has a foot OOB. That is the point which Camron Rust keeps trying to make.

In addition, the offensive player can't just run into the defender in the form of a block/charge and expect to get a block just because the defender was OOB when they could have easily gone around particularly if they go out of their way to make the contact. The situation this rule was created for was when the defender was trying to cut off the offense's path along a boundary by deliberately stepping across the line. That's it. If you don't have that, then this situation doesn't really apply.