Block / Charge Situation

[Adam]

I agree with Camron. If B1 isn't moving, he doesn't need LGP. 4.23.3 deals specifically with a player moving and maintaining LGP. It doesn't apply to a stationary defender.

[truerookie]

Why did B1 set up so close to the baseline that would cause him to be OOB?

The baselines and sidelines are your friend. You can easily establish your position so that you are not consider OOB thus losing your status of LGP.

Block!!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I appreciate this particular discussion. Back in the early 70's our veteran high school coach taught us to always put a foot OB so that the dribbler couldn't possibly get around us on that side. "Take the charge!", he'd say.
When officiating in the 80's and early 90's, I acknowledged no problem with this and recall no rule against it.
When coaching in the late 90's and early 00's, I coached defenders the same way.
When resuming officiating in the mid-00's, I see that a rule change must have taken place. Either that or my high school coach was incorrect and I wasn't as up on the rules as I should have been.
Last year I polled a variety of varsity coaches on this "legal guarding position = in bounds" issue, and about 70% of them got it wrong.
Of course it takes a while for the rules to catch up with the coaches, doesn't it!

Freddy,
This change began back prior to the 2003-04 season when the NFHS tried to pass it off as an editorial change. We knew then that it was really a rule change and said so. Case plays and interpretations came out the following season. Here are a couple of our early discussions about this on this forum:
legal guarding position

Has anyone seen the new wording on "legal guarding position" must have both feet IB

More on Rule for 2003-2004

One Foot on the Line, The Sequel

The last one is my favorite.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Why did B1 set up so close to the baseline that would cause him to be OOB?

The baselines and sidelines are your friend. You can easily establish your position so that you are not consider OOB thus losing your status of LGP.

Block!!

Block against a stationary defender?

Until the fed specifically says we should call this play a block, I've got PC.

[OHBBREF]

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties
Section 6 Contact ART. 2 . . . A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact. If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent. If a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble.

That is the FED from last year I think but I am stuck on the term legally obtain a defensive position. you can not be legal if your foot is on the line. So unless the dribbler put his head down and go out his jousting lance and ran this defender over, the call has to be a block becuase the defender is not legal.
The NCAA wording is virtually identical.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

That is the FED from last year I think but I am stuck on the term legally obtain a defensive position. you can not be legal if your foot is on the line. So unless the dribbler put his head down and go out his jousting lance and ran this defender over, the call has to be a block becuase the defender is not legal.

LGP has to do with being able to get to a spot in the path of an offensive player, not a defender who happens to be in the path the offensive player wants to take. See the difference? In the OP, if the defender is facing the ball handler, then tries to step in front of the moving ball handler and gets to the spot first with both feet inbounds, it's a charge. If the defender contacts the ball handler before getting to the spot first, it's a block, because they didn't maintain LGP. If the defender gets to the spot first, but has one foot OOB, it's a block, also because there is no LGP.

But let's say the defender and ball handler are both standing there staring at each other, then the ball handler decides to run through the defender who is just standing there. Obvious charge. Turn the defender around so their back is to the ball handler, and they are just standing there; now the ball handler takes off and runs through the back of the defender. Another obvious charge, even though the defender does not have LGP, by definition. The defender is entitled to the spot on the floor, and they did not move into the path of the offensive player. This time the defender is standing with one foot OOB before the ball handler takes off - still a charge, again not because of LGP, but because they did not move into the path of the offensive player, and they're entitled to a spot on the floor.

[Adam]

If the defender is stationary, LGP is not required, I don't care how long he's been there. In that case the case play noted is not relevant. If the defender is moving laterally at contact, then he needs LGP, and better not have a foot OOB.
I will not call a block on a stationary defender unless the fed makes it very clear that's what they want; or my assigner does the same.

[OHBBREF]

My point here is that all of the references for being legal - refer to the player being inbounds which he is not.

I am saying that unless the actions of the ball handler are seriously aggressive, unsporting or there is some obvious contact that would be a charge under any circumstances, I can not give the defender the benifit of the doubt it they are not legally on the floor. I am not talking legal guarding position, I am talking about not being legal period. infact in an other thread people have talked about violating him for having his fut on the line.

So l let's twist it this way - and see what you think.
Let's take the ball out of the situation. and make it a rub off screen where A2 is at the baseline with a foot on the baseline while A1 makes a rub off cut inbounds that looses the defender B1 due to contact with A2 is that a legal screen?

If

[Adam]

I don't care if a player has the ball or not; if he is stationary, he cannot be responsible for contact. If he's completely out of bounds, call the violation for leaving the court. If he's got a foot on the line, he can't have or keep LGP. If he doesn't need LGP, then it doesn't matter if his foot is on the line.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

My point here is that all of the references for being legal - refer to the player being inbounds which he is not.

I am saying that unless the actions of the ball handler are seriously aggressive, unsporting or there is some obvious contact that would be a charge under any circumstances, I can not give the defender the benifit of the doubt it they are not legally on the floor. I am not talking legal guarding position, I am talking about not being legal period. infact in an other thread people have talked about violating him for having his fut on the line.

So l let's twist it this way - and see what you think.
Let's take the ball out of the situation. and make it a rub off screen where A2 is at the baseline with a foot on the baseline while A1 makes a rub off cut inbounds that looses the defender B1 due to contact with A2 is that a legal screen?

Be careful about confusing a player being OOB, with a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason; those are two different scenarios. Having a foot OOB is not leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Having a foot OOB can affect whether a player has LGP, and whether or not a screen is considered legal. However, there's still that annoying little phrase about a player being entitled to a spot on the floor. So, in your example, if A2 is set on the spot before B1 starts the move and runs into A2, responsibility for the contact still rests with B1.

[Back In The Saddle]

The provision about a player being entitled to a spot on the floor is not absolute.

NFHS 4-23-1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

One common situation when being "there" first is does not entitle the player to that spot is when the player's chosen position is in the path of an already airborne player. I bring this up not because it has direct bearing on the OP, but because it illustrates that merely being first is not absolute.

So to ask the unpopular question: If the defensive player's foot is on the OOB line, even if he's been there since last Tuesday, did he really "get there first without illegally contacting an opponent."?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So to ask the unpopular question: If the defensive player's foot is on the OOB line, even if he's been there since last Tuesday, did he really "get there first without illegally contacting an opponent."?

Yep. Until the Fed tells me otherwise in no uncertain terms.
If the player hasn't left the playing court, then it's a spot he's entitled to.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So to ask the unpopular question: If the defensive player's foot is on the OOB line, even if he's been there since last Tuesday, did he really "get there first without illegally contacting an opponent."?

Did he contact the opponent, or did the opponent contact him?

Besides, if he was there since last Tuesday, wouldn't the janitor have taken care of the situation?

[Adam]

Let's change this. B2 standing with a foot on the line and the other foot comletely in bounds. A1 driving down the sideline, runs into B2, knocking him to the floor. Nothing flagrant or intentional, as he's focussed towards the basket; he just grazes the defender.

You gonna call a block on B2?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let's change this. B2 standing with a foot on the line and the other foot comletely in bounds. A1 driving down the sideline, runs into B2, knocking him to the floor. Nothing flagrant or intentional, as he's focussed towards the basket; he just grazes the defender.

You gonna call a block on B2?

A/D. No foul.