Well of course, that's what he gets for calling me old. ;)

Finally, we agree!

Okay, so let me ask this.

A1 jumps for a rebound and lands on the leg of B1, who is lying prone and motionless. B1 never moved, meaning A1 did not jump straight up and down.

What's your call?

I know I'm coming very late to this party and I haven't read all the responses. But if there's a common foul to be called, I'm going block. For those of you who ask rhetorically, "Does that mean a player without LGP is fair game for cheap shots?", I say, if you think A1 took a cheap or intentional shot then call it intentional. But if the guy is out of bounds, then I've got a block.

The rules committee made it crystal clear that the game is legally played inbounds. If you're playing out of bounds, then you're not playing within the rules. So you're going to be called for the foul.

I made the mistake of reading the first four-and-a-half pages of this thread. Once I realized that my eyes were glazing over, I quit reading and went to the last page. How in the world can something so simle turn into 12 pages???

This is what happens when a couple guys (me included) have nothing going on during the day at work. :D

Oh, and I disagree with Scrapper. Not completely, but in regards to the play being discussed in the last 11 pages.

The rule that states they are entitled to a spot "on the playing floor." The player is OOB by definition so they are in a spot that they are not afforded the protection. A stationary player anywhere "on the playing floor" is entitled to that protection BY RULE. In this case, with a player standing OOB, I will NEVER call a player control foul. I may call an INTENTIONAL, or maybe even a FLAGRANT FOUL if the situation warrants that type of call. Otherwise you have INCIDENTAL contact.

You still, in almost 11 pages, have not answered how this player is legally occupying a spot "on the playing floor?"

You are absolutely right!!! But the location of the player does!!! The player is OOB, by rule. That would mean that the player is NOT legally occuping the spot "on the playing floor" and as such is the responsible party for contact in the original post.

There is no circumstance that I would ever call this play (the OP) an offensive foul. If the foul is on the offense then it will either be INTENTIONAL or FLAGRANT.

Tex, this is the one argument I think does have some merit here - and the only way one could justify calling a block on a stationary player in this situation.

That said, I disagree with that interpretation, and there is no case play that makes the case that a stationary player with a foot on the line is always responsible for contact.

Edit to add: I also want to make the point that your (Texref) case for a block has nothing to do with LGP. That's an important distinction, and why the case play cited most often here doesn't apply here.

That's because I'm still mulling this one over, to be honest. The 4.23.3 point doesn't work, except only as basic precedent. Scrappy is right about the committee's desire to have the game played inbounds.

Here are my thoughts on it.

1. I've never heard anyone consider calling a violation on a player without the ball who steps on the line, regardless of the reason and intent. It's widely agreed that to even consider this violation, the player has to have gone completely OOB; not just step on the line.

2. Therefore, players who step on the line aren't considered to have left the playing court even though they may be considered out of bounds.

If the player is not legally "on the playing floor" then how can he not be responsible for contact?

On a side, a to defend somewhat rwest, my interpretation of the case play being brought up, although it applies to LGP, is the same a rwest in that the player being OOB is what the FED is wanting called. IMO, they used that example b/c that is what we will see 9 times out 10 on the floor during a game. But again, I think the point of it is that the player went OOB, thus not only losing his LGP, but his "spot on the playing floor" as required by rule.

If the player lifts the foot up that is OOB, then he is "on the playing floor" and entitled to that protection. If it remains OOB, he is not legally in a spot "on the playing floor."

By definition of Player Location, if they are touching OOB, they are considered OOB. OOB is not considered to be part of the playing surface. Otherwise why do we call an OOB violation when they just barely touch the line?

First, I don't blame you for not reading everything; my eyes are glazed over even as I'm typing now. But I'll try to help out a TX Rangers fan...

Here's the gist of the arguments - the case play involved is 4.23.3 Sit B: "B1 is called for a blocking foul because <B>a player cannot be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position</B>." So, since it is under the rules section involving Guarding, and the wording in the case play specifically gives the reason for the call is due to LGP, some of us feel that LGP is the main issue, not simply being OOB.

Then are you going to call a violation on A2, when he steps on the baseline under the basket while using a screen?

Or, in the OP, are you going to call the defender for a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason when he steps on the line, inadvertently, while attempting to close the gap between him and the sideline?

? In the scenario is A2 the screener or the one going around the screen? It doesn't make a difference by rule, I realize, just curious. To answer the question though, yes, that is a violation according to the FED, with case plays to back it no?

In the OP, I am calling the block as I don't feel the player left the court intentionally, but he is off the floor and as such is, IMO, responsible for the contact at that point. It's no different than a player who loses track of where they are and they accidentaly go OOB and realize it and come back in. By rule, violation, BUT, by spirit of the rule (didn't gain an advantage), no violation. I did say earlier that I can see the violation call (but I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE CORRECT CALL)and would be a lot more accepting of that over the player control foul. Somebody back on page 5 or 6 though did answer the question about this not being a violation. Sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and find where exactly now. :D