Block/charge and line

[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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Dad

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

There are plenty of people on both sides of this.

I don't see plenty on both sides. I see a vast majority on one.

[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.