Block / Charge Situation

[irishref]

this is a block. the defender did not have legal guarding position since he had one foot out of bounds

[irishref]

it is a block since the defender did not have legal guarding position with one foot out of bounds

[Adam]

You gonna call a block everytime a player without LGP is involved in contact?

[irishref]

in this case it is the rule
your not going to let an offensive player with the ball step on the line

[Adam]

Originally Posted by irishref

in this case it is the rule
your not going to let an offensive player with the ball step on the line

What rule says a player who is standing still needs to have LGP?

[irishref]

national federation a couple of years ago made a point to have this called a block not saying i like it but it is in the rule book

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by irishref

this is a block. the defender did not have legal guarding position since he had one foot out of bounds

The most important, fundamental question that seems to be missed by this argument - LGP simply doesn't apply to the play we're discussing!

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by irishref

national federation a couple of years ago made a point to have this called a block not saying i like it but it is in the rule book

Cite it, please. And not 4.23.3, because it doesn't apply to the situation we're discussing.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not exactly. Jammed my finger, ruptured a tendon, and the doctor calls it a "mallet deformity."
I think I'll tell people I was saving a hot cheerleading coach from a raging fat guy at the beach.

And put your buddy in the hospital in the process!!

[M&M Guy]

...sigh...Here we go again.

irishref, first off, welcome to the forum.

Next, please read all of this thread, as we have aleady gone over these exact arguments already. If you have anything new to add, we would be happy to go over that.

Not trying to be hostile or anything, especially to someone new to this place, but some of us are tired of going over this and want to get back to good dreams.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Really?



The spot doesn't belong to A1 until he leaves the floor. If B1 is laying there before A1 jumps, the foul is on A1. If not, it's on B1. Do you disagree with any of this?

jdw again does a spectacular job of explaining this, and I have no desire to try to re-state it.

No, the spot belongs to A1 when he legally obtained it which was before he left the floor. He's entitled to the spot until he legally vacates it which is not when he jumped for the rebound. He is entitled to come back down on the same spot. If B1 has fallen and is under him when he comes down, that's a block!

And I said "land" on him; not "jump" on him. Jump implies intent. I would never allow a player to intentional jump on another player. Land does not imply intent. At least that's not what I meant when I made the post.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

No, the spot belongs to A1 when he legally obtained it which was before he left the floor. He's entitled to the spot until he legally vacates it which is not when he jumped for the rebound. He is entitled to come back down on the same spot. If B1 has fallen and is under him when he comes down, that's a block!

And I said "land" on him; not "jump" on him. Jump implies intent. I would never allow a player to intentional jump on another player. Land does not imply intent. At least that's not what I meant when I made the post.

Nobody has said that B1 is allowed to take a spot that is legally entitled to anyone else. If B1 falls under A1 after A1 has left the floor, then yeah, it's a foul on B1.

Why are you complicating this more than needs to be? If B1 is in a spot (and not A1's spot) before A1 leaves the floor, but then A1 comes down in a different spot, which happens to be the spot B1 is laying on, then it's definitely not a foul on B1...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by irishref

national federation a couple of years ago made a point to have this called a block not saying i like it but it is in the rule book

They made it a point to call a block on the play in the case book, 4.23.3B. That play specifically states it's a block because the defender lost LGP. That implies the defender needed LGP, which implies he was moving (because there is no situation in which a stationary player requires LGP.) There is no rule that ever requires LGP for a stationary player.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

And I said "land" on him; not "jump" on him. Jump implies intent. I would never allow a player to intentional jump on another player. Land does not imply intent. At least that's not what I meant when I made the post.

Do you have a rules reference for this?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

No, the spot belongs to A1 when he legally obtained it which was before he left the floor. He's entitled to the spot until he legally vacates it which is not when he jumped for the rebound. He is entitled to come back down on the same spot. If B1 has fallen and is under him when he comes down, that's a block!

And I said "land" on him; not "jump" on him. Jump implies intent. I would never allow a player to intentional jump on another player. Land does not imply intent. At least that's not what I meant when I made the post.

First, if you've got A1 landing in the exact same spot he left from, then I'm with you. B1 obviously moved to the spot after A1 jumped. It has nothing to do with B1's body position, however.
I've got A1 landing in a different spot, one that is occupied by a prone B1. Forget intent, if you think A1 tried to jump on B1, call the X. I'm guessing we agree on that.