Block/charge and line

[so cal lurker]

NFHS legal guarding position. If a defender has a foot on the baseline (or sideline) can he have legal guarding position to take a charge, or does it automatically become a block? And in the real world, how tightly is that monitored -- do you call it as closely as a player with the ball being out of bounds? And last, is my memory correct that this changed a few years back and it used to be that a defender could set up with a foot on the line to ensure it was impossible for the dribbler to go around?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

NFHS legal guarding position. If a defender has a foot on the baseline (or sideline) can he have legal guarding position to take a charge, or does it automatically become a block? And in the real world, how tightly is that monitored -- do you call it as closely as a player with the ball being out of bounds? And last, is my memory correct that this changed a few years back and it used to be that a defender could set up with a foot on the line to ensure it was impossible for the dribbler to go around?

Automatic block. Case play 4.23.3 B

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Automatic block. Case play 4.23.3 B

... and the OP's memory is correct that this was changed about 10(?) years ago.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Automatic block. Case play 4.23.3 B

It's not an automatic block. Just because a player has a foot on a line doesn't give a ball handler the a-ok to slam into them just to get a foul. This isn't how LGP work.

What the case book play does say is two things.

1) You can't initially obtain LGP with a foot on the lane. So now the no time or space rule can't apply to a defender.

2) A defender can't move to maintain LGP if it involves putting a foot OOB.

This by no means says an automatic block just because someone has a foot OOB.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dad

It's not an automatic block. Just because a player has a foot on a line doesn't give a ball handler the a-ok to slam into them just to get a foul. This isn't how LGP work.

What the case book play does say is two things.

1) You can't initially obtain LGP with a foot on the lane. So now the no time or space rule can't apply to a defender.

2) A defender can't move to maintain LGP if it involves putting a foot OOB.

This by no means says an automatic block just because someone has a foot OOB.

You have the right to your place on the floor if you reach it legally. If you're foot is on the line have your reached your place legally?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You have the right to your place on the floor if you reach it legally. If your foot is on the line have your reached your place legally?

This play is talking about LGP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

This play is talking about LGP.

yes, but many seem to apply this even to a stationary player, where LGP is normally not required to draw a charging foul.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Dad

It's not an automatic block. Just because a player has a foot on a line doesn't give a ball handler the a-ok to slam into them just to get a foul. This isn't how LGP work.

What the case book play does say is two things.

1) You can't initially obtain LGP with a foot on the lane. So now the no time or space rule can't apply to a defender.

2) A defender can't move to maintain LGP if it involves putting a foot OOB.

This by no means says an automatic block just because someone has a foot OOB.

4.23.3 B
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), a blocking foul is ruled on B1 because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), a player control foul is ruled on A1 because B2 had and obtained and maintained legal guarding position.

It is an automatic block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

4.23.3 B
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), a blocking foul is ruled on B1 because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), a player control foul is ruled on A1 because B2 had and obtained and maintained legal guarding position.

It is an automatic block. Its says obtain or maintain

In this case play, B1 is moving to maintain position. Since he is moving, LGP is required to be legal. If B1 is stationary, LGP is not required.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

4.23.3 B
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), a blocking foul is ruled on B1 because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), a player control foul is ruled on A1 because B2 had and obtained and maintained legal guarding position.

It is an automatic block. Its says obtain or maintain

Try again. LGP is not required for a PC foul.

You're confusing LGP with something that doesn't exist.

This play is a block because the defender is trying to maintain LGP and steps on the line in doing so. It's not saying there is a foul automatically no matter what because a player has a foot OOB.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Dad

Try again. LGP is not required for a PC foul.

You're confusing LGP with something that doesn't exist.

This play is a block because the defender is trying to maintain LGP and steps on the line in doing so. It's not saying there is a foul automatically no matter what because a player has a foot OOB.

Doesn't at some point the defender have to have had a LGP in the path of the offensive player?

[Adam]

If he's left the paying court, there's a violation to be called for that. If he hasn't left the paying court for that purpose, how can we say he's left the paying court for this purpose?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

If he's left the paying court, there's a violation to be called for that. If he hasn't left the paying court for that purpose, how can we say he's left the paying court for this purpose?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

We say he's left the playing court because, by rule, he is OOB. He hasn't violated, because, as you know, not every case of a player going OOB is a violation and accidentally stepping on the end line is one of those cases where it isn't.

So again, how does he have a legal position?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

We say he's left the playing court because, by rule, he is OOB. He hasn't violated, because, as you know, not every case of a player going OOB is a violation and accidentally stepping on the end line is one of those cases where it isn't.

So again, how does he have a legal position?

The wording is the same, is it not? It's about the playing court. The violation is for leaving the playing court, so if one foot on the line is not a violation for leaving the playing court, how can we say he doesn't have a legal position because he's not on the playing court? He's either on the playing court or he's not.

I recognize he doesn't have, nor can he have LGP. I do not recognize that this is an illegal position, however, for a stationary player.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

The wording is the same, is it not? It's about the playing court. The violation is for leaving the playing court, so if one foot on the line is not a violation for leaving the playing court, how can we say he doesn't have a legal position because he's not on the playing court? He's either on the playing court or he's not.

I recognize he doesn't have, nor can he have LGP. I do not recognize that this is an illegal position, however, for a stationary player.

There are three statuses by rule: on the court, authorized off the court and unauthorized off the court. Stationary players in the first have legal position, players in the third have committed a violation. The second, though, have not committed a violation and are not described as being entitled to their position.

We say that because legal position is defined as a spot on the court reached without illegally contacting an opponent.

It would be better if there was a direct rule or case on the situation because the rules only cover the situation by exception.