Block/charge and line
 

NFHS legal guarding position. If a defender has a foot on the baseline (or sideline) can he have legal guarding position to take a charge, or does it automatically become a block? And in the real world, how tightly is that monitored -- do you call it as closely as a player with the ball being out of bounds? And last, is my memory correct that this changed a few years back and it used to be that a defender could set up with a foot on the line to ensure it was impossible for the dribbler to go around?

Automatic block. Case play 4.23.3 B

... and the OP's memory is correct that this was changed about 10(?) years ago.

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?

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.

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.

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 ????

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.

If he's left the paying court, there's a violation to be called for that. If he hasn't left the paying court for that purpose, how can we say he's left the paying court for this purpose?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

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.

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?

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.

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.

Are you allowing holding by the ball handler because the player is OOB? If the defender is trying to get out of the way and steps OOB, but the offense goes out of their way to jump into the offense (because they see their foot on the line) are you calling a block even though the offense is just standing on the court clearly out of the lane to the basket?

LGP doesn't equal legal position. What is a legal position and why does it matter?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not if he's stationary.

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?

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

That's true. You're right.

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 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 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.

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

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.

Bold, when will you see reason. :)

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

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.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Now back to the other discussion...

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.

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?

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?"

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

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

This is the crux of our disagreement, then.

Well, you can't go OOB to avoid a screen. There's a practical argument to be made to ignore just stepping on the line. Somewhere between completely on the court and running behind the lead, you have to call it.

I submit that point is the same point where a player has lost his right to his spot as he's no longer on the court.

A case would be nice.

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.

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.

That's not quite what the rule says. It says you can't leave the playing court.

It says you can't be OOB and have LGP.

It says you are entitled to your position on the "playing court."

I see a distinct difference, since they use different phrasing, between leaving the playing court and being OOB.

Don't know, but the rule is only that you can't have LGP while OOB. So, it follows that if LGP isn't part of the decision, then it isn't automatically a block. No part of the rule says all contact by a player OOB is a block.

I think this is a really good point. If we assume that OOB and off the playing court are distinct, what is the difference? Perhaps off the playing court is not having anything touching the court, but I don't know of any official definition of it.

9.3.3 SITUATION C:

A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3's try is in flight.

RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

This issue is what does "out of bounds outside the end line" mean? Does it just mean obtaining OOB status or does it mean being entirely outside the end line? I don't think this case clears that up as I don't think it's being specific enough as to where B3 is.

Call it if it's obvious? If it is not obvious then don't call it. If you have to split hairs then don't worry about it.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Okay, but if he's obviously running down the line with one foot on the court and one foot out of bounds is he obviously violating or obviously not violating?

Intent. Is he intentionally running OOB, or just running and stepping on the line?