Block/charge and line

[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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

From my talking to people it would seem the majority apply it this way. Had a game where there was a zone defense and the defender was basically asleep on the post with his foot on the line. Ball handler came into the lane completely out of control and slammed into the post defender who never even turned to defend him. Partner called a block because his foot was OOB. We discussed it after the game with six officials and the assigner.

Easy no call for me. I'm calling PC here possibly depending what happens, but the defender didn't really ever move after the contact.

[Multiple Sports]

Dad,

Please answer this question...How can you legally play defense out of bounds ???

Isn't legal guarding position by definition a defender who initially has two feet on the floor IN BOUNDS ????

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dad

This play is talking about LGP.

Originally Posted by Adam

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

We know he doesn't have LGP because he has a foot on the line. The question then is if he has a legal position period. 4-23-1 entitles every player to a "spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without *illegally contacting an opponent."

So he is out of bounds, by rule. How then does he have a legal position when contact with the dribbler happens?

As far as I can tell, any contact between an OOB player and a dribbler short of intentional/flagrent by A is going to be charged to the defender.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

Dad,

Please answer this question...How can you legally play defense out of bounds ???

Isn't legal guarding position by definition a defender who initially has two feet on the floor IN BOUNDS ????

Two questions and in some cases two very different things. LGP is what the case book is talking about. You can't initially get it OOB and you can't maintain it if you touch OOB. This is only for cases where LGP is the definer for whether you're going to call a foul on the defense or the offense.

In many cases you can't play defense out of bounds, or perhaps, being crafty, you can. Say you're OOB and the defender is probably going to get by you so you make an attempt to touch the ball. This would cause a violation, but in a way, it's defense. Now, same scenario, but while going for the ball the ball handler grabs your arm and throws it away so you can't contact the ball. What are you calling here? Offense? Are you letting the ball handler push off or grab the defense to gain an advantage just because the defense has a foot on the line?

Legally playing defense isn't really a definable term. LGP is.

Wasn't really sure how to answer your question, hope this helped.

[wildcatter]

Originally Posted by Dad

From my talking to people it would seem the majority apply it this way. Had a game where there was a zone defense and the defender was basically asleep on the post with his foot on the line. Ball handler came into the lane completely out of control and slammed into the post defender who never even turned to defend him. Partner called a block because his foot was OOB. We discussed it after the game with six officials and the assigner.

Easy no call for me. I'm calling PC here possibly depending what happens, but the defender didn't really ever move after the contact.

How is this a no call? Unless there was a different result from what I imagine happened after one player slammed into another, this doesn't sound like incidental contact.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by wildcatter

How is this a no call? Unless there was a different result from what I imagine happened after one player slammed into another, this doesn't sound like incidental contact.

A1, the dribbler, runs into B1 and falls over losing the ball. B1 never moves because of the contact A1 made. There are plays like this where I have no whistle, not to say I never have a whistle. Slam was probably poor wording on my part.

[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?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

For a PC call? No, for instance, if someone is standing on the court with their back to you you don't just get to run them over because they don't have LGP.

If you're talking about something else. Not sure.