NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think too many people get hung up on what I consider the red herring argument. That is A1 crashes into B2 who does not have LGP on A1. The argument you and others have made is that he doesn't need LGP because a stationary player is not required to have LGP. I agree with you that the foul should be on A1 but for a different reason. B2 does not require LGP on A1.

He does require LGP on A2 (assuming that is who he is guarding). Require is probably to strong a word. He needs LGP if he wants to have the right to move to maintain LGP. If B2 does not have LGP on A2 then if contact occurs, B2 is probably going to be more responsible for it. It depends on the play. I'm not making a blanket statement here. LGP provides some protection to the defender. If a defender does not have LGP this does not give the offense the right to do whatever he wants. The fact that the defender does not have LGP is just one factor we use in determining who the foul is on.

It seems clear to me from the rule book and the case play that the FED does not want the defender playing defense out of bounds.

So Adam, what rule are you going to use if not LGP to call a foul on B2 who is out of bounds when he tried to obtain LGP?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by 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.

The written word can easily be interpreted in a way the writer did not intend. People infer things. I think this is one of the problems with the LGP debate. The rule does not say LGP is only required for a moving player. That is something that some have inferred from what they have read.

There has to be a way to correct a misunderstanding in the rule book. Sometimes that occurs through the use of a case play. For example, the rules regarding the jump ball and where the players can stand and what they can do is a little confusing until you read the case plays. At least it was for me when I FIRST started officiating. Also, remember, the Case Play book has as much authority as the rule book. As least, if I remember correctly, there is some such language in front of the case book.

How can we say the Case Book is wrong and the rule book is correct when they are written by the same committee? How do you know that the case play was not written to clarify the misunderstanding of the rule book?

I think it is dangerous to say that the case book is wrong and that the rule book is correct. If that's the case then some of the case plays regarding the jump ball are wrong because the rule book doesn't clearly indicate what the writer is trying to say.

Then we have official interps that come out. This I believe should take precedence over the case book and the rule book.

If the rule book and case book don't agree how do you know which one is correct?

I think its wrong to assume that the rule book is correct and the case book or official interp is wrong. Remember, they all come from the same organization.

Let me give you an example from softball. Anyone who has done ASA softball for 10 years or more will remember that the ASA rule book had a mistake in it regarding the dropped third strike rule. The official interp had it correct. If we take the approach that the rule book is the gospel and the case book and official interps are supplemental and subject to the rule book then we would not allow a runner to run to 1st in some circumstances. The rule book was clearly wrong.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by 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.

If we can disregard any case play because we don't THINK it is compatible with the rule book, then any one of use can disregard any arguments made using the case book. All we have to say is the case play is wrong.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

If we can disregard any case play because we don't THINK it is compatible with the rule book, then any one of use can disregard any arguments made using the case book. All we have to say is the case play is wrong.

You're completely misunderstanding me. I never said to disregard the case play. I'm only saying it should be narrowly applied.

Since it is somewhat vague, I'm going to apply it in a way that's compatible with the rules (quoted above) which state every player is entitled to his spot if he gets there first.

As for the rest, I'm reminded of the time a friend tried to recruit me into Amway, and his grandson said, "Show him the circles, Grandpa!"

Unless there's something new, I'm done.