NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

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!

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Adam

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 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?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

B1 in the lane guarding A2. As A2 A1 drives into the lane, he runs over a stationary B1, still facing away.

What's your call?
....

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.

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.