Everyone is entitled to a spot
 

B1 standing in the lane facing A's basket. Guarding no one. A1 grabs rebound at other end of court and goes full speed for,a layup and plows into back of B1. I have some very senior officials saying block on B1. Telling me that B1 did not have a LGP. I know this is a player control foul on A1. Can someone help me out with some fodder to convince these guys. I don't think LGP has anything to do with this play. Is 10-6-7 convincing enough?

While they are correct in that player B1 didn't have LGP, that doesn't make it a foul on B1. Lack of LGP only removes the right of B1 to be moving to maintain position, to jump, or to raise their arms (verticality). If they are not doing any of those things when their is torso to torso contact, they can't be guilty of a foul.

You say torso to torso. But if A1 displaces B1 regardless of where the contact is if a foul is going to be called it would be PC correct?

his point is that if B1 has any limb extended, and contact is on that limb, there could be a blocking foul.

By what I heard in camps this summer, there may be a move afoot at the NCAA-M's level to deem this a block by the defender.

Not advocating or rejecting, just saying what I heard more than once over the summer.

Wouldn't be the first time NCAA officials went outside the rules to call a block when the rules said it was a charge. (semi-circle)

Truthfully, this one (running into the back of a stationary opponent) is just not practical. You'd have offensive players looking for defenders looking the other way just to run into them.

It's not the officials having this conversation, it's supervisors.

Read the definition of guarding in Rule 4. 4-23-1 I believe it is.

According to 4-23-2 and -3, we must have INITIAL legal guarding position (both feet touching the playing court AND the front of the guard's torso facing the opponent). Then, after INITIAL has been established, the guard, among other things, may "turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact."

Note that after INITIAL lgp has been established, the guard may have both feet off the floor, move laterally or obliquely, raise hands vertically, etc.

This brings in to play something I believe some in my association have been calling incorrectly for years: the slight tilt backward by the defender who has lgp before contact actually occurs. Isn't it clear by the above rules reference (especially 3c) that even if the defender who has INITIAL lgp starts moving backward early to absorb the imminent contact, AND contact does occur, he is still in lgp? "But Coach, he flopped!"

You're right, this should be a charge, provided there is still enough contact to warrant a foul.

The first two paragraphs are irrelevant to the OP.

In the last, if the falling back is slight then call the charge (assuming the other conditions are met). But, sometimes the defender falls so much that either there isn't any contact or the defender already put himself at a disadvantage and the contact didn't add to it, so the contact now becomes incidental.

(Not to say that "some in (your) association" aren't being too generous to the offense on some of the plays.)

The point remains the same regardless of who is discussing it. It doesn't have any rule support and it is problematic at best.

Why should a stationary player have to step out of a spot they legally obtained just to avoid a foul when an opponent chooses to run into them? There is no fundamental reason to make that a block. There is no problem that it is solving. It is merely someone trying to find (or create) a reason not to call a charge again.

Am I supposed to answer that? What are you going to do if the NCAA-Men decide that's how they want the play adjudicated?

LGP does not apply?
 

IMHO you can throw LGP as well as all of 4-23 out the window in this situation because as the OP states: "B1 is guarding no one." It seems to me the position/action of B1 more accurately falls into the definition of screening (4-40) rather than guarding in that B1 is legally delaying or preventing an opponent from reaching a desired position. Furthermore B1's position/action is described by all the legal screening requirements listed in
4-40-2. It makes sense, then, that A1 would be expected to avoid contact as stated in 4-40-7. Your thoughts?

I think 4-23-1 is most DEFINITELY pertinent.

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."