NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[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.