Block/charge and line

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm not aware of any case play that says stepping on the line qualifies here.

This is the crux of our disagreement, then.

Well, you can't go OOB to avoid a screen. There's a practical argument to be made to ignore just stepping on the line. Somewhere between completely on the court and running behind the lead, you have to call it.

I submit that point is the same point where a player has lost his right to his spot as he's no longer on the court.

A case would be nice.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I think this is over complicating a pretty straightforward expected outcome for contact with a defender that has a foot OOB. The result is a block. Any mention, LGP or otherwise, is that the contact is illegal. I will stick with that until I am explicitly told otherwise. If all the salmon are swimming one direction I don't need to be heading downstream.

The underlying rule covering this is specifially about LGP. The case cited above does as well. No other case or rule that I've seen says it is fair game to run into someone who is OOB anymore than it is fair game to run into a stationary player who has his/her back to the offensive player.

[deecee]

If the expectation is that with LGP it is illegal why in the heck would it not apply to any other condition? Running over someone who has LGP or is just standing there is the same thing. It's running over someone who has a position on the court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Well, you can't go OOB to avoid a screen. There's a practical argument to be made to ignore just stepping on the line. Somewhere between completely on the court and running behind the lead, you have to call it.

I submit that point is the same point where a player has lost his right to his spot as he's no longer on the court.

A case would be nice.

That's not quite what the rule says. It says you can't leave the playing court.

It says you can't be OOB and have LGP.

It says you are entitled to your position on the "playing court."

I see a distinct difference, since they use different phrasing, between leaving the playing court and being OOB.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

If the expectation is that with LGP it is illegal why in the heck would it not apply to any other condition? Running over someone who has LGP or is just standing there is the same thing. It's running over someone who has a position on the court.

Don't know, but the rule is only that you can't have LGP while OOB. So, it follows that if LGP isn't part of the decision, then it isn't automatically a block. No part of the rule says all contact by a player OOB is a block.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's not quite what the rule says. It says you can't leave the playing court.

It says you can't be OOB and have LGP.

It says you are entitled to your position on the "playing court."

I see a distinct difference, since they use different phrasing, between leaving the playing court and being OOB.

I think this is a really good point. If we assume that OOB and off the playing court are distinct, what is the difference? Perhaps off the playing court is not having anything touching the court, but I don't know of any official definition of it.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think this is a really good point. If we assume that OOB and off the playing court are distinct, what is the difference? Perhaps off the playing court is not having anything touching the court, but I don't know of any official definition of it.

9.3.3 SITUATION C:

A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3's try is in flight.

RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

9.3.3 SITUATION C:

A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3's try is in flight.

RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

This issue is what does "out of bounds outside the end line" mean? Does it just mean obtaining OOB status or does it mean being entirely outside the end line? I don't think this case clears that up as I don't think it's being specific enough as to where B3 is.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

This issue is what does "out of bounds outside the end line" mean? Does it just mean obtaining OOB status or does it mean being entirely outside the end line? I don't think this case clears that up as I don't think it's being specific enough as to where B3 is.

Call it if it's obvious? If it is not obvious then don't call it. If you have to split hairs then don't worry about it.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Call it if it's obvious? If it is not obvious then don't call it. If you have to split hairs then don't worry about it.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Okay, but if he's obviously running down the line with one foot on the court and one foot out of bounds is he obviously violating or obviously not violating?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Okay, but if he's obviously running down the line with one foot on the court and one foot out of bounds is he obviously violating or obviously not violating?

Intent. Is he intentionally running OOB, or just running and stepping on the line?