Block / Charge Situation

[OHBBREF]

A1 receives a swing pass down at the baseline and begins his drive to the bucket. A1 plows into B1 knocking him to the floor at the lower part of the block on the fouline but prior to contact B1 has one foot out of bounds. What is your call and why?

[jdw3018]

Was B1 stationary? PC foul. B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB.

Was B1 moving? More difficult. By stepping OOB, B1 has given up his legal guarding status, but that doesn't mean A1 is entitled to barrel over him. If the contact is such that legal guarding status is required for a PC foul to be called, then it's not a PC foul.

[Freddy]

Your sitch has the defender with one foot out of bounds. Your description suggests that this violation (9-3-3) was committed prior to the "crash."

Violation on the defender. Ignore the "crash."

[rlarry]

Blocking foul.

[Raymond]

In NFHS this is a block.

[grunewar]

Text Book Situation 4.23.3, Situation B. Blocking Foul - Accept for not being on the sideline, it's almost verbatim.

[Freddy]

Interesting point . . . jdw says, "B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB."

Point of order here: 4-23-1 says: "Every player is entitled to a spot ON THE PLAYING COURT . . ." 4-23-3a says that a legal guarding position consists of "inbound status."

Therefore, is it not correct that B1 is not entitled to his illegal guarding position because he is committing a violation by having a foot OOB?

[Freddy]

I revise my opinion based on the citation given by "grunewar". BLOCK.

[jdw3018]

I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong here - however, 4.23.3 deals with legal guarding position, and in the OP there certainly is no legal guarding position.

However, legal guarding position isn't required for all PC fouls. A player facing away from the dribbler doesn't have legal guarding position. But, if that player is stationary, A1 cannot displace him from his position on the court.

I'd contend that a stationary B1, even with a foot touching the end line, is still entitled to that spot. I'll also contend this is not a violation unless you deem B1 intentionally left the playing court.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I'd contend that a stationary B1, even with a foot touching the end line, is still entitled to that spot. I'll also contend this is not a violation unless you deem B1 intentionally left the playing court.

JDW - you can "contend" all you want, the NFHS Caseplay and rule is "B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position."

Picture A1 dribbling and B1 attempting to "force" A1 out of bounds by maintaining his LGP and using the sideline/baseline. B1 may not intentionally leave the court, but, if he's on the line and there's a collision, Fed says you have a block.

[jdw3018]

I don't disagree that B1 forfeits his LGP. In fact, that's what I said in my first post on this topic.

But what if LGP isn't required?

[Freddy]

I appreciate this particular discussion. Back in the early 70's our veteran high school coach taught us to always put a foot OB so that the dribbler couldn't possibly get around us on that side. "Take the charge!", he'd say.
When officiating in the 80's and early 90's, I acknowledged no problem with this and recall no rule against it.
When coaching in the late 90's and early 00's, I coached defenders the same way.
When resuming officiating in the mid-00's, I see that a rule change must have taken place. Either that or my high school coach was incorrect and I wasn't as up on the rules as I should have been.
Last year I polled a variety of varsity coaches on this "legal guarding position = in bounds" issue, and about 70% of them got it wrong.
Of course it takes a while for the rules to catch up with the coaches, doesn't it!

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I don't disagree that B1 forfeits his LGP. In fact, that's what I said in my first post on this topic.

But what if LGP isn't required?

even if you go with the part about the defender is entitled to his position on the court, since the foot is OB there is no way that you can not call this a block.
the player has to be on the floor to be legal - not just to have legal gaurding position.

[PAULK1]

This is from the 04-05 interps from NFHS ( I believe this was the year they changed the rule)
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)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

even if you go with the part about the defender is entitled to his position on the court, since the foot is OB there is no way that you can not call this a block.
the player has to be on the floor to be legal - not just to have legal guarding position.

Disagree. A defender who is OOB doesn't automatically become open for free hits just because they're OOB.

The rule that addresses this is ONLY about LGP. It declares that and OOB player can't have LGP. Thus, any contact that depends on LGP will automatically be a block if the defender is OOB. However, contact that doesn't depend on LGP is unaffected by this rule. All case plays and interpretations dealing with this situation are in the context of a player actively guarding their oppoenent...making LGP relevant.

Additionally, it deals only with block/charge. Any other type of foul (illegal use of hands, push, hold and hand check) against the offensive player are still possible even if the defender is actively guarding the dribbler.

EDIT: ran spell checker after seeing I had so many typos. :|