NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

My point is that, while a stationary player may have LGP, they don't need it.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rwest

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. ...

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

I have kept this debate civil and now just because you can't prove me wrong you insult my rule knowledge!

I'm entirely civil. Read what you wrote. Either you don't understand LGP or you didn't write what you think you did.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

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.

Rule 4-23-3. LGP is a status, once obtained, that grants the defender the right to be moving in certain ways at the time of contact. That is the entire purpose of LGP. It doesn't grant any additional rights to someone who is stationary. So, if they are not moving, they don't really need LGP.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

How can a player who is not moving be responsible for contact? (And, just to be clear, we're not talking about a player who has a arm, leg, or hip extended outside their frame).

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

And that B2 was MOVING, not stationary.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

Agree.... because B2 was moving.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

Well, that is not what you said earlier.

[DLH17]

I had 5th grade girls introductory league games last night. My head almost exploded. So much stuff going on out there. Nearly impossible to "slow the game down", much less determine legal guarding position while at the same time looking for contact above the shoulders, pushes, trips, travels, slaps, legal and illegal contact, shoe tying, on and on and on and on.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that B2 was MOVING, not stationary.

No B2 was stationary in my OP. In the Case Play below movement is inferred by many people and I agree that it is not an unrealistic inference. However, let me draw your attention to this part of the ruling. See highlighted portion below.

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)

The ruling clearly states that you can not obtain LGP while out of bounds. That is my OP that I mentioned. Movement is absolutely not necessary to obtain LGP. To obtain you must have two feet on the floor (inbounds) facing your opponent. This can be while moving and this can be while stationary.
A player may also have to move to obtain it but he does not obtain it until both feet are on the floor inbounds while he is facing his opponent.

So, once again, let me give you my play.

Step 1: B2 is guarding A2. He has LGP on A2.
Step 2: A1 beats B1 off of the dribble, near the sideline.
Step 3: B2 moves to cut off A1's path. One foot is off the floor as he is moving. He DOES NOT HAVE LGP on A1 at this time because he does not have both feet on the floor facing his opponent.
Step 4: He comes down with one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds. He is stationary. He does not have LGP.
Step 5: A1 is unable to avoid running into B2.
Step 6: Ruiling: Block. Why? Because you can't be out of bounds when obtaining LGP.

Answer me this question. Does a player have to be moving to obtain LGP or can a stationary player obtain LGP?

[Adam]

This wouldn't be the only case play where the Fed used faulty wording in the "ruling" section to arrive at their desired ruling.

Frankly, I have no idea what they really want here, and I'm going to fall back on the rules.
4-23-1 "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court...."
10-6-7 "A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path...."

I think, for whatever reason, whichever of us is right is not getting through to whichever of us is wrong. And you're right about the fact that this has very little practical effect. I've had more blarges in my career than this call.