Block/charge and line

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

Not if he's stationary.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not if he's stationary.

That's true. You're right.

[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.

[Dad]

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.

Sometimes what we think and what is true are very far apart.

There are plenty of people on both sides of this.

[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.