Block v charge foot on sideline

[Larks]

Anyone have a link to the block / charge call with defenders foot on sideline?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Larks
Anyone have a link to the block / charge call with defenders foot on sideline?

If you have this year's rule book, check out POE 3(B) on p70- "LEGAL GUARDING POSITION ALONG A SIDELINE OR ENDLINE- Last year's editorial change that required a defensive player to obtain legal guarding position while on the playing court met with concerns......As long as the defender obtains legal guarding position WHILE ON THE COURT AND CONTINUES TO HAVE INBOUNDS STATUS, a charging foul is called if there is contact deemed a foul". Iow, if the defender is OOB, there is NO legal guarding position, and any contact would always be a block. They also cleaned up the rulebook language-- i.e. R4-23-3(a) - "The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, PROVIDED HE/SHE HAS INBOUND STATUS".

[Larks]

Thanks JR

[ChuckElias]

Also, here's the links, in case you want to go back and look over our conversations from when this first went into effect. I just happened to be looking at old posts this afternoon and saw these.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10731
http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10735

Hope it helps.

[jritchie]

if you are refereeing the defense, you should be able to see s/he foot on the line, and if you have block/charge call it is a BLOCK EVERY TIME. If you go by book rule

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by jritchie
if you are refereeing the defense, you should be able to see s/he foot on the line, and if you have block/charge call it is a BLOCK EVERY TIME. If you go by book rule

I agree in principle, but in reality might not happen. We still are trained to watch for the body contact, not just where the feet are located. All I am going to say is that I am not going to split hairs. This was not an issue last year so it might stay that way for some time.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

I know that many will disagree with me but I'll say it again anyway.

It is NOT an automatic block to be run into if you have a foot OOB. The rule ONLY specifies that the player who has a foot OOB does not have legal guarding position (although this will most often make any contact a block).

If the defender is actively defending (moving to maintain position) and steps on the line just as or before their is contact, I agree, this, by the new rule, is a bock every time. The purpose and intent is to not allow the defender any more space to play defense than the offense gets to make their move.

However, when a player who does not have legal guarding postion is invovled in contact on his torso, he may or may not be guilty of a block.

Consider B1 in the lane facing the basket (no LGP). A1 dribbles down the lane from the top of the key and steamrolls B1. Easy. PC foul on A1 every time. Although B1 did not have LGP, B1 also did nothing to contribute ot the contact.

Back to an OOB case. B2, who got knocked down and OOB on a previous action (ruled incidental), stands up with a toe on the baseline and remains motionless for a couple of seconds while gaining his senses. A1, not looking where he was going (or perhaps deliberately), drives baseline and plows over the stationary B2. This is a PC foul.

Having OOB status does NOT make a player fair game for contact. It does exclude them from using it for a defensive advantage.

As I said, in 99% of the cases where this may happen, it will be a block because the defender will be attempting to maintain a LGP. But, I think it is important to not over simplify this to say its always a block no matter what. That's not what the rule says and the case book gives an example play, not a play that can be extrapolated to other dissimilar situations.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Oct 1st, 2004 at 09:49 PM]