Block/charge and line

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

Interesting list of statuses. It helps me see your argument, even if I disagree.

You're saying a player who puts his foot on the line is off the court, but authorized?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

Interesting list of statuses. It helps me see your argument, even if I disagree.

You're saying a player who puts his foot on the line is off the court, but authorized?

Can I assume we agree he's off the court?

If we aren't going to call a violation for stepping on the line (without player control, obviously), we must see that as authorized leaving of the court. Authorized leaving of the court is generally interpreted as stepping out of bounds in the normal play of the game without seeking unfair advantage.

I'm not sure how else you could classify him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Can I assume we agree he's off the court?

If we aren't going to call a violation for stepping on the line (without player control, obviously), we must see that as authorized leaving of the court. Authorized leaving of the court is generally interpreted as stepping out of bounds in the normal play of the game without seeking unfair advantage.

I'm not sure how else you could classify him.

I classify him as still on the playing court.

If a player has stepped on the line in an attempt to go around a screen, do you consider that a violation?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

I classify him as still on the playing court.

If a player has stepped on the line in an attempt to go around a screen, do you consider that a violation?

Yes. Isn't there specifically a case on that?

In practice, that's a low order violation and we're looking either at a different match up or the screener's body position and aren't going to always see it unless they go well OOB. And, like 3 seconds, I try to warn a team if there's no immediate advantage. IME, it doesn't happen two often because offenses don't run their cutters that close to the end line.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Yes. Isn't there specifically a case on that?

In practice, that's a low order violation and we're looking either at a different match up or the screener's body position and aren't going to always see it unless they go well OOB. And, like 3 seconds, I try to warn a team if there's no immediate advantage. IME, it doesn't happen two often because offenses don't run their cutters that close to the end line.

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

This is the crux of our disagreement, then.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Can I assume we agree he's off the court?

If we aren't going to call a violation for stepping on the line (without player control, obviously), we must see that as authorized leaving of the court. Authorized leaving of the court is generally interpreted as stepping out of bounds in the normal play of the game without seeking unfair advantage.

I'm not sure how else you could classify him.

My thought is that if the player is camped out at the spot, I would go with the violation well before any contact happens. If he gets there just in time to try to get a PC call, I'm going block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

My thought is that if the player is camped out at the spot, I would go with the violation well before any contact happens. If he gets there just in time to try to get a PC call, I'm going block.

In that case, he's likely moving and a block is the right call anyway. Let me ask you, though, "If a player has stepped on the line in an attempt to go around a screen, do you consider that a violation?"

[SNIPERBBB]

Probably wouldn't see it. But by rule it would be a violation.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

Where does it say the bold part in the rule book? Keep in mind LGP and entitled to a position are not the same thing.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dad

Where does it say the bold part in the rule book? Keep in mind LGP and entitled to a position are not the same thing.

I haven't said a thing about LGP in this whole thread.

4-23-1

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without *illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

You can only be entitled to a spot on the playing court which by definition does not include a spot out of bounds.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I haven't said a thing about LGP in this whole thread.

4-23-1


You can only be entitled to a spot on the playing court which by definition does not include a spot out of bounds.

I keep saying LGP so you don't confuse the two, which you just did and I tried to prevent. 4-23-1 is talking about LGP. Guarding. Ok. How do you legally guard. LGP.

Nowhere does it say you're not entitled to a spot on the playing court because you have a foot on a line. Unless, it's talking about initially getting or maintaining LGP.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dad

I keep saying LGP so you don't confuse the two, which you just did and I tried to prevent. 4-23-1 is talking about LGP. Guarding. Ok. How do you legally guard. LGP.

Nowhere does it say you're not entitled to a spot on the playing court because you have a foot on a line. Unless, it's talking about initially getting or maintaining LGP.

I'm afraid you're the one confusing guarding and legal guarding position. You can guard without legal guarding position, provided that you are stationary. LGP is only required when you are moving and guarding.

But if you don't like 4-23-1, take it from 4-37-3 which is identical in the important respect: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the *player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

Importantly, review 4-35-2. A player who is touching the line is OOB, not on the court. So no, it doesn't say anywhere that a player on the line isn't entitled to his spot on the court because the player, by rule, isn't on the court.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm afraid you're the one confusing guarding and legal guarding position. You can guard without legal guarding position, provided that you are stationary. LGP is only required when you are moving and guarding.

I'm not. Guarding has to do with LGP they are one in the same system, in the same section, and one is how you get the other. Guarding is a definition in the rule book, and not the dictionary definition. Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of the offensive opponent. THERE IS NO MINIMUM blah blah blah << This is LGP. It is talking about LGP. Guarding in 4-23 is acquired by LGP. Guarding is not the only way a player plays defense. Guarding is also not the only way we decide a PC or defensive foul.

But if you don't like 4-23-1, take it from 4-37-3 which is identical in the important respect: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the *player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

Playing court. Alright. The PLAYING COURT shall be marked with sidelines, end lines, and other lines as shown in Figure 1-1. There shall be at least 3 feet (and preferably 10 feet) of unobstructed space outside boundaries.


Read above very carefully. Lines are clearly considered the playing court. If you step on a line you are OOB. On the playing court. It's not hard to also get to the 3-10 feet of space is also part of the playing court.

Importantly, review 4-35-2. A player who is touching the line is OOB, not on the court. So no, it doesn't say anywhere that a player on the line isn't entitled to his spot on the court because the player, by rule, isn't on the court.

In all these places the player is still on the playing court.

Bold, when will you see reason.