Block/charge and line

[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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Dad

Bold, when will you see reason.

It says the playing court will be marked WITH not that those are INCLUDED as part OF.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dad

Bold, when will you see reason.

You really need to start breaking up a quote when you want to address specific parts for two reasons. 1) It's generally bad form to add or change quoted material (short of removing with ellipses) and 2) it' makes it too difficult to quote you in a reply.

Anyways, you went to the wrong rule for playing court.

1-1

The playing court (see Figure) shall be a rectangular surface free from obstructions and with dimensions not greater than 94 feet in length by 50 feet in width. IDEAL MEASUREMENTS ARE: High School Age - 84 by 50 feet. These are the dimensions for the playing court only. Suggestions about construction and lighting are in Table 1-1, Number 3 (can be found in "NOTE" above).

The playing court is just the part inside the lines.

Good discussion so far.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You really need to start breaking up a quote when you want to address specific parts for two reasons. 1) It's generally bad form to add or change quoted material (short of removing with ellipses) and 2) it' makes it too difficult to quote you in a reply.

Anyways, you went to the wrong rule for playing court.

1-1

The playing court is just the part inside the lines.

Good discussion so far.

I agree, but I don't really see it going anywhere from here. For the purpose of this kind of call I consider the player to still have a right to their spot. If the case play said a player is not entitled to a spot on the court since said player was OOB -- I'd have no issue agreeing with you.

However, since it only talks about LGP there are going to be super rare scenarios where I'll call a PC regardless of whether or not a player has their foot on an OOB line. I've never had one in eight years, and I've only had the opportunity to discuss it with a crew once. I'm not going to have any issue with an official calling this play either way, but in my take of the ruling having your foot on an OOB line doesn't give the other player the right to run you over if you're standing in a spot.

Sorry about the quote thing. I'm at work and my posts are generally as quick(lazy) as possible.