Block / Charge Situation

[OHBBREF]

A1 receives a swing pass down at the baseline and begins his drive to the bucket. A1 plows into B1 knocking him to the floor at the lower part of the block on the fouline but prior to contact B1 has one foot out of bounds. What is your call and why?

[jdw3018]

Was B1 stationary? PC foul. B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB.

Was B1 moving? More difficult. By stepping OOB, B1 has given up his legal guarding status, but that doesn't mean A1 is entitled to barrel over him. If the contact is such that legal guarding status is required for a PC foul to be called, then it's not a PC foul.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Was B1 stationary? PC foul. B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB.

Was B1 moving? More difficult. By stepping OOB, B1 has given up his legal guarding status, but that doesn't mean A1 is entitled to barrel over him. If the contact is such that legal guarding status is required for a PC foul to be called, then it's not a PC foul.

This is the reason the Fed came out with this interp a fews year back. If an offensive player (with or without the ball) can not go out of bounds, then we can not allow a defensive player to be out of bounds. If you allow this, then you are giving an advantage to the defense. They both have to play within the confines of the playing court. The defense is not entitled to any spot on the "floor" but on the playing court, which does not include the lines.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

This is the reason the Fed came out with this interp a fews year back. If an offensive player (with or without the ball) can not go out of bounds, then we can not allow a defensive player to be out of bounds. If you allow this, then you are giving an advantage to the defense. They both have to play within the confines of the playing court. The defense is not entitled to any spot on the "floor" but on the playing court, which does not include the lines.

Let's change it up a bit, then. A1 is getting ready to make a cut by the sideline - when he does, his heel is on the line. At the same time, B1 holds him, preventing him from making his cut.

What's your call here? I've got B1 with a holding foul.

To me, it's no different - other than we've got a common foul instead of a PC foul.

Remove the ball from the original play - A1 is cutting to the basket, and B1 is stationary on the baseline with the foot on the line. A1 contacts B1 firmly in the torso, sending B1 sprawling. What do you have?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Let's change it up a bit, then. A1 is getting ready to make a cut by the sideline - when he does, his heel is on the line. At the same time, B1 holds him, preventing him from making his cut.

What's your call here? I've got B1 with a holding foul.

To me, it's no different - other than we've got a common foul instead of a PC foul.

Remove the ball from the original play - A1 is cutting to the basket, and B1 is stationary on the baseline with the foot on the line. A1 contacts B1 firmly in the torso, sending B1 sprawling. What do you have?

If the violation occurred first, then you call it and ignore the foul. If the foul occurred first then call it and ignore the violation.

No offense intended guys, but I can't believe we are arguing this since there is a spot-on case play that addresses this issue exactly. Look, guys I don't like it anymore than many of you. I even argued many of the points being made here with our VP of training when this interp first came out years ago. However, I'm not given the option to enforce only the rules I like or to interp a rule in direct opposition to the Fed. I don't make the rules. I only enforce them. And the Fed absolutely wants this to be called a block. I respect your opinions, but based on the case play, I have to disagree with you. This is a block.

[Freddy]

Your sitch has the defender with one foot out of bounds. Your description suggests that this violation (9-3-3) was committed prior to the "crash."

Violation on the defender. Ignore the "crash."

[rlarry]

Blocking foul.

[grunewar]

Text Book Situation 4.23.3, Situation B. Blocking Foul - Accept for not being on the sideline, it's almost verbatim.

[Raymond]

In NFHS this is a block.

[Freddy]

Interesting point . . . jdw says, "B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB."

Point of order here: 4-23-1 says: "Every player is entitled to a spot ON THE PLAYING COURT . . ." 4-23-3a says that a legal guarding position consists of "inbound status."

Therefore, is it not correct that B1 is not entitled to his illegal guarding position because he is committing a violation by having a foot OOB?

[Freddy]

I revise my opinion based on the citation given by "grunewar". BLOCK.

[jdw3018]

I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong here - however, 4.23.3 deals with legal guarding position, and in the OP there certainly is no legal guarding position.

However, legal guarding position isn't required for all PC fouls. A player facing away from the dribbler doesn't have legal guarding position. But, if that player is stationary, A1 cannot displace him from his position on the court.

I'd contend that a stationary B1, even with a foot touching the end line, is still entitled to that spot. I'll also contend this is not a violation unless you deem B1 intentionally left the playing court.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I'd contend that a stationary B1, even with a foot touching the end line, is still entitled to that spot. I'll also contend this is not a violation unless you deem B1 intentionally left the playing court.

JDW - you can "contend" all you want, the NFHS Caseplay and rule is "B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position."

Picture A1 dribbling and B1 attempting to "force" A1 out of bounds by maintaining his LGP and using the sideline/baseline. B1 may not intentionally leave the court, but, if he's on the line and there's a collision, Fed says you have a block.

[irishref]

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

[Adam]

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