Trip on a rebound

[ColeTops25]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not all fouls are based on LGP.

Peace

By rule, how do you justify the player lying on the floor, and not causing the traveling violation? Are you saying it's case by case, meaning it depends on how the defender got to the floor?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

By rule, how do you justify the player lying on the floor, and not causing the traveling violation? Are you saying it's case by case, meaning it depends on how the defender got to the floor?

Every player is allowed their spot on the floor. That does not have anything to do with LGP. LGP applies to specifically when a defender is trying to prevent an offensive player with the ball. On a rebound you often do not have LGP considering that players are not facing each other or the basket. The NF does not make the distinction like the NCAA does under the rules. So if a player is on the floor and someone trips over them, it is not the responsibility of the person on the floor to be in LGP in this situation.

Peace

[ColeTops25]

So, lets throw this out there. What if I, as a defender, decide to lay down in the lane as my opponent is posting me up. The post guy receives the pass without the knowledge that his opponent is lying down behind him, and shuffles his feet backwards and falls to the ground....you call a traveling violation?

[ODog]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

So, lets throw this out there. What if I, as a defender, decide to lay down in the lane as my opponent is posting me up. The post guy receives the pass without the knowledge that his opponent is lying down behind him, and shuffles his feet backwards and falls to the ground....you call a traveling violation?

I think I agree here. Every player is entitled to a spot on the floor, but a spot 6 feet wide is an unfair advantage and not the spirit of the rule.

You hear "within the vertical frame" a lot. You never hear "within the horizontal frame."

[egj13]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

By rule, how do you justify the player lying on the floor, and not causing the traveling violation?

By rule how do you justify calling a trip on the player that hit the floor? Couldn't incidental contact apply here?

As far as your scenario where the kid lays down I would assume you would call that an unsporting foul.

4.19 Art. 14...An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists
of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

[rockyroad]

In the OP, the action all took place during rebounding activity, so LGP has nothing to so with it under NFHS rules.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

In the OP, the action all took place during rebounding activity, so LGP has nothing to so with it under NFHS rules.

This is the reason I think I would consider this to be incidental contact.

[ColeTops25]

Originally Posted by egj13

By rule how do you justify calling a trip on the player that hit the floor?

He doesn't have LGP.

As far as your scenario where the kid lays down I would assume you would call that an unsporting foul.

"I was tying my shoe; I had a cramp"...not unsporting.

Now I'm just being obtuse, but my point is I still believe the player on the floor does not have LGP. FWIW, my Interpreter agrees.

[APG]

A1 pump fakes...B2, thinking a shot is about to go up turns to face the basket. A1 drives and go to and through the back of stationary B2....B2 never obtained an initial legal guarding position.

Are you going to call a block here because B2 did not have LGP?

[ODog]

Originally Posted by APG

A1 pump fakes...B2, thinking a shot is about to go up turns to face the basket. A1 drives and go to and through the back of stationary B2....

Are you going to call a block here?

Not a comparable scenario.

B2 has LGP in this one, so this is an easy, if unpopular, PC call. You don't have to face someone to have LGP. You only need to be facing to establish it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ODog

Not a comparable scenario.

B2 has LGP in this one, so this is an easy, if unpopular, PC call. You don't have to face someone to have LGP. You only need to be facing to establish it.

I already changed the scenario to indicate that B2 never obtained legal guarding position.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

I already changed the scenario to indicate that B2 never obtained legal guarding position.

Actually you didn't. B2, in your play, had it to start with. Turning away doesn't remove it.

[Adam]

Every player is, by rule, entitled to his spot on the court, and LGP is not required for this. LGP is meant to add privileges for the defender, not to add requirements to a stationary (with regard to the court position) player.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

He doesn't have LGP.



"I was tying my shoe; I had a cramp"...not unsporting.

Now I'm just being obtuse, but my point is I still believe the player on the floor does not have LGP. FWIW, my Interpreter agrees.

Your interpreter would be wrong (according to NFHS rules) ... as was previously stated, it isn't a case of legal guarding position. It would be a travel on the ball handler if there is control.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

He doesn't have LGP.



"I was tying my shoe; I had a cramp"...not unsporting.

Now I'm just being obtuse, but my point is I still believe the player on the floor does not have LGP. FWIW, my Interpreter agrees.

And you are 100% correct. But, at the same time, your point is 100% irrelevant.

LGP is only relevant when the defender is moving. If you read what LGP allows, that is all you've find....that various movements are legal once it is obtained. Stationary players may have LGP but they don't need it since they're not doing any of the things afforded by having LGP.