Illegal box out

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

To summarize AremRed's response....

No.

And you are going to call what type of infraction for this? Certainly not a personal foul, since the way it is described makes it sound as though there hasn't been any contact. Sounds to me like a something similar to the team that sets moving screens all day, but the defensive players are too dumb to run into the screen, and instead get put at a huge disadvantage and try to go around the person setting the illegal screen. Since an illegal screen is a personal foul, not a violation, there isn't really anything against the rules until there is contact between the two players.

[BillyMac]

2015-16 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

1. POST PLAY
New information has been added to the Rule Book that addresses cleaning up post play.
It is legal for offensive and defensive players to touch when both are maintaining a legally established position. Illegal contact on a post player is any tactic using hands or arms or just generally demonstrates rough physical movements that allows a player on offense or defense to control the movement of an opposing player.
It is a foul and should be ruled as such when:
a. An opponent is displaced from a legally established or obtained position;
b. An arm-bar is extended and displaces an opponent;
c. A locked and/or extended elbow displaces an opponent;
d. A leg or knee is used in the rear of an opponent to hold or displace;
e. Holding, hooking, slapping, pinning or pushing the leg or body of an opponent;
f. An offensive post player “backs-down” and displaces the defender once that defender has established a legal guarding position.

[LRZ]

In the 2015-2016 POEs, rebounding, too:

2. Rebounding
[snip] Some examples of illegal rebounding activity are:
C. Using the hips or knees to hinder or impede an opponent.... [emphasis added]

"Sticking his leg in between mine" so the OP couldn't move without tripping? Hard to imagine being unable to move without tripping, as the OP says, unless there's some contact, certainly enough for a foul.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by johnny d

And you are going to call what type of infraction for this?

Block

[BryanV21]

So the opponent is sticking his leg between the players legs without making contact?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

So the opponent is sticking his leg between the players legs without making contact?

But once there is contact the guilty party is the one sticking his leg between the other player's legs: infraction of the Principle of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

But once there is contact the guilty party is the one sticking his leg between the other player's legs: violation of the Principle of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.

Violation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

... violation of the Principle of Vertically.

Originally Posted by Dad

Violation?

I think Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. meant violation with a small "v" (common dictionary definition), not Violation with a capital "V" (Rule 9).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Dad

Violation?

I changed the word to infraction.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

And you are going to call what type of infraction for this? Certainly not a personal foul, since the way it is described makes it sound as though there hasn't been any contact. Sounds to me like a something similar to the team that sets moving screens all day, but the defensive players are too dumb to run into the screen, and instead get put at a huge disadvantage and try to go around the person setting the illegal screen. Since an illegal screen is a personal foul, not a violation, there isn't really anything against the rules until there is contact between the two players.

Sounded like there was contact to me...and contact that was preventing the player from moving. If there had been no contact, I don't think the OP would have even noticed the action.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by johnny d

And you are going to call what type of infraction for this? Certainly not a personal foul, since the way it is described makes it sound as though there hasn't been any contact. Sounds to me like a something similar to the team that sets moving screens all day, but the defensive players are too dumb to run into the screen, and instead get put at a huge disadvantage and try to go around the person setting the illegal screen. Since an illegal screen is a personal foul, not a violation, there isn't really anything against the rules until there is contact between the two players.

In NCAA-M's it would be a foul for invading the personal cylinder.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In NCAA-M's it would be a foul for invading the personal cylinder.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Invading the personal cylinder is not a foul until the invading person illegally contacts the opponent. It is not a foul to simply be within another player's cylinder.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Invading the personal cylinder is not a foul until the invading person illegally contacts the opponent. It is not a foul to simply be within another player's cylinder.

Well duh

Point being if there is contact based on this positioning, it will be illegal contact on the defender under NCAA-M's rules.