NFHS emphasis on elbow contact
 

Can someone please give me an example of when they would call a foul on player whose elbow is completely stationary?

"Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul."

By definition, how can you commit a foul with your elbow if it isn't moving?

Thanks,

Mendy

The same way he would commit a foul with his knee without it moving.

Can you be less vague? Do you mean sticking his elbows out to prevent a player from getting around a screen?

If the elbows are stationary, but the torso is turned in such a way as to cause contact ...

You lost me. How can you cause contact if you are stationary?

Then the elbows were not stationary. :/

By extending the arms outside the frame of the body. They can be entirely stationary but in a position that is not legal if the opponent runs into them. The person with the arms extended "caused" the contact by having the arms in a position where they'd be hit.

And forget about "cause contact" for determining who a foul is on. Causing contact is not necessarily illegal. What is illegal is being in an illegal position or moving in a non-permissible direction when contact occurs, regardless of who caused it.

Right. Elbows can be stationary, moving, or excessively swinging.

Onthe OP, it might be elbows out on a screen (like a blocking position in footbball), or an arm held out to prevent a defender from fronting, etc.

While I understand your point, I don't think it makes sense to forget about who caused contact. Almost all fouls are committed by causing illegal contact. Even in the scenario you cite, the extended elbow causes the contact which creates the foul.

This is seen alot on Illegal screens. Player sets screen with elbows extended beyond body and clips the side of the body (or possibly the head) of defender as he attempts to avoid the screener. Can't think of any other instance where you would see this type of play.

It makes sense if the stationary player doesn't have legal position.

chinning the ball
 

the sit i see is chinning the ball and having your elbows our to your side. Not moving and a defender tries to reach in and hits his head on your elbow on his way in to reach for the ball. thoughts.

"Cause" is a positive action as it is commonly used in the realm of basketball. As such, the elbow in your example didn't cause the contact...it was just there. The other player caused contact by moving into it. It just happens that the reason it is a foul is that the elbow was not in a legal position when contact occurred.

Shooters cause contact all the time when they catch a defender out of position....maybe the arms are not vertical and the shooter ensures they cause contact in hopes of getting a foul (sometimes deserved, sometimes not).

I have no foul. The ball handler doesn't have to clear a way for the defense to get to the ball. The elbows have to be somewhere and if the hand on that arm is holding the ball, I'm not going to consider it illegal when someone runs into it regardless of the position. If that arm is, instead, being used to shield the ball but not holding the ball or is extended in a very unnatural fashion, I would consider otherwise.

+1

Officiating the on ball matchup & beyond is the key to knowing that the screener is illegal before contact occurs.

Great points, after all, who's going into who's vertical space.
You reach, I teach...

I think we are in agreement other than semantics. :)

Who is this semantics guy who disagrees with us? Maybe he needs some clarification. ;)

I think the next question is whether the semantics matter. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Here, I would lean towards saying they do.

our assigner rules that there is no situation for elbow contact above the shoulder to be ruled a common foul. is this your take on that rule?

That's clearly contrary to the statement in the POE.

I just saw this thread now, and this was my exact thought.

Setting a screen with elbows high and wide is not a legal position, so any contact on those elbows is illegal. This is similar to a defensive player who takes a stationary position with one foot on an out-of-bounds boundary line. The position is not legal, so any contact that occurs is illegal contact caused by the defender.

That is not correct. The OOB player can't have LGP, that is all. The rule doesn't come anywhere near declaring that they are liable for all contact by being OOB, just that they can't be guarding. It doesn't become open season for an opponent to run into them if they see they happen to be touching OOB but are not actively guarding.

The case play that some like to cite to support your claim involves a player actively guarding the opponent...meaning the player was moving to maintain LGP but loses it by stepping OOB. It doesn't support your claim at all.

Ball handler and elbows
 

9-13-2. . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.

So, A1 holds the ball as described, above, and B2, guarding A2 runs into A1's elbow.

What do we have?

(I've seen this, numerous times, and even with severe contact to the head of B2.) What judgement factors do you use regarding such contact?

According to 4-40-7, a player with the ball can be considered to be a screener. I would say in this situation A1 could be charged with an illegal screen.

Depends. It could be a foul on either. It could either be a screen that is called against A1 or it could be a foul on B2 for contacting the ball handler's arm. Unless it was a clear attempt to use the elbow to set a screen, I'm most likely going with the defensive foul. If you don't you'll have defenders running into the ball handler's arms all night trying to get the illegal screen call.

Agreed. It could also be incidental contact.

Most of the time, a player only chins the ball when a defensive player is tring to swat at it. So, the chances of having a different defensive player run into the elbow are pretty slim, I would think.

He need to rethink his statement......

Yep, taking a college mentality and applying it to high school when the rules don't support it.

Maybe even taking a misunderstanding of the college rule.

The one and only problem I see with this whole thing is that someone has to see the elbow contact. Since there are no monitors (at least in our area in HS), a coach cant request or even suggest that his kid got an elbow...no way to review even if the kid is on the grown holding his face.

Yes, even a misunderstanding of the college rule.

it is my college assigner. lol perhaps i misread what he posted..

if A1 is swinging his elbows and he contacts B1, above the shoulders it is a Flag 1 or Flag 2, below the shoulders is Ccommon, flag1 or flag 2. if the swinging is excessive and contact is made flag 2. THen there is the contact by an elbow that is not swinging. It can be a foul or incidental. so no swinging elbow contact can be a common foul? may be that is the point he was making. How does that sound?

I'm not getting your point. That's true for any type of foul at the high school level isn't it? :confused:

Rule set?

ncaa

A couple of things:

1) Use "moving" instead of "swinging" to (help) avoid confusion with "excessive".

2) Even contact with a moving elbow can be incidental (at least in NCAAW), even if above the shoulders.

thanks bob
im trying to wrap my head around a common foul on this. assigner said u cant have a common foul if you think the player "didnt mean to do it". guess i better get clarification from him on this

Elbow Grease ...
 

Color me confused.

We had our first meeting last night, the "new rules" meeting, and our interpreter "pretty much" said the same thing, paraphrased as, "With no contact, excessive swinging will be a violation. With no excessive swinging, an elbow to an opponent's head will either be incidental, or intentional. With excessive swinging the foul will be intentional, or flagrant".

Where's the common foul?

He was "pretty much" relying on a Power-point based on NFHS "language". When I asked him under what conditions an official would charge a common foul, he told us that he would discuss it at the next meeting.

So my question to the Forum, particularly IAABO members: Will we ever charge a common foul if an opponent gets struck in the head by a moving elbow?

Your first statement (from farther up in the thread) is incorrect because it just says "elbow contact." Contact with a stationary elbow can be a common foul.

Let me try this:

1) First, decide whether the contact is incidental or illegal. Even contact with a moving elbow above the shoulders can be incidental (but it would be extremely rare for it to be incidental if the elbows were being Excessively Swung -- as defined in the book).

2) If the contact is illegal, then:
a) Stationary, above the shoulders: Common
b) Stationary, below the shoulders: Common
c) Moving, above the shoulders: Intentional
d) Moving, below the shoulders: Common
e) Excessively Swung, above the shoulders: Flagrant*
f) Excessively Swing, below the shoulders: Intentional

Any of the above can be "upgraded" of course, if you think the situation warrants.

* -- The rule, I think, really just says "intentional", but I'd be hard pressed not to have this as flagrant

And, from a game management point, most of the time, this happens on a rebound when we let the new defense hack away at the person getting the rebound. Get them out of there (use your voice) or call the foul on the hack.

I Figured That Somebody Should Post The Actual Point Of Emphasis ...
 

Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.

a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.

b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

Not Excessive Swinging, No Common Foul Possible ???
 

So, if a player grabs a rebound, holds the ball in front of him with elbows slightly out, and at shoulder level, and pivots, moving his elbows with a rotational motion no faster than his feet move on the pivot, in other words, the elbow movement is not considered excessive, and accidentally strikes a shorter nearby player in the head, in the rebounder's blind spot, behind him, and to the side, and the official decides that this is illegal contact, then, according to the NFHS, the minimum "level" foul that we can charge here is an intentional foul? Do I have this right? We can't charge a common foul here? Am I reading the point of emphasis correctly?

Unintended Consequences ???
 

Any possibility that this could backfire on the NFHS? Like the time that they changed excessive swinging from a violation to a non-contact technical foul, and only a few officials called it that way because some thought that the penalty was too harsh? After a few seasons of many officials not calling anything on excessive swinging, the NFHS changed it back to just a violation. I can certainly see some veterans on my local board choose to rule incidental contact rather than charging an intentional foul on non-excessive swinging that results in elbow to head contact, when in past years they simply would have called a common foul to end such behavior. And I can see many more of our local veterans simply ignoring the Point of Emphasis and just charge a common foul in the same situation.

Yep, you got that right. The only reason a player has their elbows in such a position is to use them to clear space, even if not excessively swung. They want the elbows out of the play altogether.

Mechanic??
 

Can you all chime in on the mechanic of reporting a a flagrant personal foul from excessive use of elbows above the shoulders?

There are no official signals or mechanics for any flagrant foul.

My suggestion is to just verbalize all the information when it comes to the type of foul and then give the "heave-ho" signal at the end when reporting to the table.

Otherwise there is no standard for these situation.

Peace

Where do I find the "heave-ho" signal?:)

The same place you find the flagrant foul signal. ;)

Peace

Different Sport, But You Get The General Idea ...
 

I know that it's not approved by IAABO. Pretty sure that it's not approved by the NFHS.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xWMvunX3zGk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's how some read it
 

There is nothing in the case play that indicates that player is moving. This is an assumption made by some based on the reasoning that the play involves guarding a player. However, you can be stationary and be actively guarding a player. So the assumption is wrong.

It is the context. The case is under legal guarding position. If a player isn't moving, they don't need legal guarding position.

+1

I still don't agree
 

The FED does not want a defender to be able to straddle the sideline or end line to cut off the offense. That's why they came up with the case play several years ago. They figured we don't allow the offense to run out of bounds so we can't allow the defense to set up out of bounds. The context is not as clear as you seem to think. At least not in my mind. LGP can start with a stationary player. LGP allows them to move to maintain it as long as the do so legally. Moving to have one foot out of bounds is not a legal defense and is not maintaining legal guarding position. If they can't be moving with one foot out of bounds why can they move to a stationary position with one foot out of bounds? Just because a defender is stationary does not mean he is legal. There are other rules that come into play. And I made the same argument you made about it being open season on defenders when this new ruling came out. Our VP of training said that straddling the line is not legal.

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.

-1

If you want to call this so literally, why are you not calling a violation for the defender leaving the court for an unauthorized reason???

That's easy
 

For the same reason we don't call a violation when a defender loses their balance and steps out of bounds. They didn't intend to step out of bounds. Intent is required. In most cases they probably didn't realize they were out of bounds.

Are you sure about that? How can you tell? When they created the case play in question, it was precisely targeted at defenders stepping OOB on purpose.

So are you saying
 

So are you saying it is legal for the defender to have one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds?

I would say that if the defender obtains a position on the court with 1 foot inbounds and 1 foot out of bounds, the defender does not have a legal guarding position, and isn't legally on the court as well. If there is contact then the defender is at fault.

If they put it OOB on purpose, by the literal application of the rules, they have committed a violation the moment it touches OOB and a foul is not technically possible.

If they are guarding an opponent and step OOB (knowingly or not) in an attempt to cut off their path, they do not have LGP and will be called for a block.

If they are not guarding the opponent and are simply there and are not moving, they don't have LGP (per the rule under discusssion) but don't need it. If the offensive player still can't avoid them, I'm not calling a block. They haven't done anything that the rule defines as being a block. The offensive player is not going to get a free foul called against the defender.

We are almost in agreement
 

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.

Maybe we can agree on this
 

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

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.

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. :D)

I do not.

Lgp
 

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.

Block

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Yes it does
 

If LGP does not apply to a stationary defender in SOME instances why is the definition to obtain LGP you must have two feet on the floor and facing your opponent. Because it does in SOME instances apply to a stationary defender. Its right there in black in white.

In some instances yes!
 

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.

I have addressed this
 

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!

I can agree with this
 

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.

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...
 

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?

Block. B2 isn't in a LGP, as they have 1 foot out of bounds.

Nothing says you have to be stationary to obtain. A player could literally be walking, for example, and still meet this requirement.

Being stationary really couldn't be less relevant to LGP.

Oh, and I have a charge on that play. B1 is entitled to his spot on the floor, as long as he isn't moving at contact.

Yes but
 

I agree, however, a player may also be stationary to obtain LGP. Which means LGP is required for a stationary player in this instance.

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)

Nothing in the above case play or rule requires the player to be moving. The player can also be stationary and stay in the path of A1. Nothing prohibits a stationary player. The rule says you obtain LGP with too feet on the floor and facing your opponent. This can include a stationary player.

In my opinion you are wrong to make a blanket statement that LGP does not apply to a stationary player.

For purposes of this discussion stationary = 2 feet on the floor and not moving.

Nothing says you have to be moving to obtain or that you can only obtain while moving.

Would you not agree that a player who is stationary (both feet in-bounds) with his torso facing the opponent has met the definition of LGP? Would you also not agree that a player who is stationary with one foot out of bounds and one foot in and who did not have LGP before assuming this position still does not have LGP?

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.

Wow!
 

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.

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.

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.

No I'm not
 

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.

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

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.
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).
And that B2 was MOVING, not stationary.
Agree.... because B2 was moving.

Well, that is not what you said earlier.

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. :)

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), <B>B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position</B>. 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?

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 guess we will just have to disagree then
 

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?

This goes to another fundamental difference we have
 

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.

One other point
 

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.