The same rule that he uses to dictate calling the blocking foul.

I knew I would lose you. You're asking my question.

My statement:
Your response:
My question:
Which rule do you use to back up your statement/question that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact?

But, that rule says it's a blocking foul because there is no LGP established or maintained. So, right before contact, all we have is a defender that does not have LGP in front of an offensive player with the ball.

Don't worry - they were at different ends of the buffet table.

You're right I typed to fast. The rule I'm using is the one that says that the player does NOT have a legal spot, nor is he entitled to the spot that he is in as long as his foot is OOB. What rule are you using to say that he can LEGALLY be OOB (again the definition of Player Location is that if the player is touching OOB, the player is OOB) and draw a foul?

I've never seen this rule; which rule is that?

I'm not familiar w/ this one...can you cite it for me?

I'm not arguing LGP. In fact nowhere in any of my responses has LGP even been brought up. YOu are now confusing me with rwest. In order to call a violation on the defense, WHICH I WOULD NOT DO, you use the rule that it is a violation to leave the court for an unauthorized reason. I'm using the argument that you are using. You said that the player is entitled to a spot anywhere on the playing court. Correct? On that we both agree! I'm saying that this player, IN THE OP, is not entitled to the spot b/c he is not "ON THE PLAYING SURFACE" by definition of player location.

bartender more Tequilla for my friends!! :D

at least then I have a good reason for this head ache.

Then this should be a violation if it wasn't an authorized reason. If stepping on the line equals leaving the court, then the player needs a valid reason to do so. In this case, there is no difference between a player stepping on the line and stepping four feet out of bounds if he does it to cross the lane and get open.

The other guys beat me to this question.

This one is WAY too easy - A1 is OOB for a throw-in, reaches through the plane before releasing the throw-in, and B1 contacts the arm, knocking the ball away.

A1 is OOB, and does not have LGP. B1 initiates contact. By your reasoning, this is either a no-call, or a foul on A1 because they're OOB. :eek:

That is my whole point - LGP is the main point of this discussion. I keep bringing it up because that is the reason for the blocking foul. Both you and rwest state the only reason for the foul is because the defender is OOB. There is an important distinction between LGP, and "player location".

Please, look at the case play again, and quote for me the reason B1 is called for a blocking foul in both the case play.

I've said what rule it is. It is the definition of Player Location. Seriously, I've said it in just about every post. I do not have a HS rule book with me at work. However the NCAA rules would be the following:

Rule 4 Sec. 9 Defines Blocking- Illegal personal contact that impedes the progress of an opponent
Rule 4 Sec. 35 Art 3 Defines Guarding (and is the basis for your argument of the player being entitled to the spot) - Every player shall be entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided that such player gets there first without legally contacting an opponent
Rule 4 Sec. 35 Art 1 Defines Guarding - Guarding shall be the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. The guarding position shall be initially established and then maintained on the playing court.
Rule 4 Sec. 46 Art 1 Defines Location of a Player - The location of a player (or non-player) is determined as being:
a. Where he or she is touching the floor, as far as being inbounds or out of bounds
b. In the front court or back court
c. Outside the three point line...
Rule 4 Sec. 52 Defines Playing Court - The playing court is the area on the floor that lies within the geometrical lines formed by the inside edge of the boundary lines.

Therefore, in the OP, the player's location is considered to be OOB, BY RULE (4-46-1a)
If the players position is OOB, then the player is not entitled to the spot on the Playing Court, BY RULE (4-52 and 4-35-3)
If the player is not legally within the path of the offense then it is a blocking foul on the defender, BY RULE (4-9)

I've stated what I would call and why and have a sound principle behind it. I've also stated what it would take for me to call a foul against the offense. :D

No, LGP is the main point of rwest's argument, NOT MINE. I'm not using it b/c it is not relevent to this play. The player's location is and that is what my whole basis for calling a block is, as indicated by my previous post.

Now will either you or jdw please provide a rule reference to call the player control foul like I have provided? Thanks. ;)

****EDITED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING THIS IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE BUT...****In fact, if you read it this way (I DON'T), BY rule in order for the player to be entitled to a spot, then he has to be considered guarding somebody since that is where it falls in the rule book! If a player is guarding someone, then they have to have LGP. LGP can't be established or maintained if the player is OOB. That could be an argument for rwest's point of view on this as well.****EDITED TO ADD THE PREVIOUSTHAT IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE BUT...****

except we are talking about defensive players being out of bounds and making things BLACK and WHITE again.

But we do agree that because A1 is out of bounds he DOES NOT have legal guarding position right?

10-6-7...A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path...

How's that?

Everyone who has posted in this thread agrees with that.

This has never been in question, by anyone, in this entire thread.

That's the whole problem - it is <B>entirely</B> relevent to this play. So, if you do not have your books handy, maybe you should refrain from commenting until you have them in front of you? Again, case play 4.23.3 Sit B is the relevent play.

Sure - 4-19-6

We will have to agree to disagree. I've made my argument and will stick by it. Maybe MTD can email Mary and get the question resolved:D

If you are using LGP, then this play is a BLOCK based on the case play and we don't need to argue!!!:confused:

Correct, I don't believe anyone has disputed that at all.

(I hope) the whole crux of this discussion is whether a stationary player can draw a charge while having a foot on the line.

First off, (I hope) we all agree a player can commit a player-control foul against a defensive player who does not have LGP, correct?

We've all said that if LGP is required on this play, it's a block. This player does not have LGP, but he does not need LGP if he is not moving.

We all agree the OP's play is a foul, if the defender was moving to obtain or maintain LGP.

The question arose as to whether a stationary defender, can still draw the charge, even if they have a foot on the line (OOB status).

Not including this particular play, I believe we can all agree that, in certain situations, a player can be called for a player-control foul against a defender that does not have LGP, correct?

yep
A1 driving to the basket B1 is running parralell to A1 haveing never establish LGP, A1 changes direction toward B1 and lowers shoulder to initiate contact and go through B1 to get to the basket.

PC foul and we go the other way.

I was being silly
the response was to the play where A1 was OOB and inbounding the ball reached through the plane and contacted by B1. Sorry long thread

There are lots of options. B1 standing still, looking at his coach for a signal, and A1 runs by him, brushing him hard enough to knock him down.

Or a rebound, B1 facing the basket, ball goes to A1 behind him. A1 grabs it and charges through B1 before B1 has a chance to turn around.

Hmm, actually B1 could have LGP in this particular case.

Perhaps a better example would A1 driving to the basket, B2 is guarding A2 on the post, and B2's back is to A1. As A1 drives past B2, A1 gives a little forearm to B2's back to creat a little more space. (Snaqs has more examples.)

Anyway, we agree the offense can commit a player-control foul against a defender who does not have LGP.

This leads us back to the question of the stationary defender with the foot on the line. My whole point is the case play tells us the defender does not have LGP, due to the foot being on the line. It does not say the defender has "illegal position", and it does not say the defender is responsible for all contact because they are OOB. There have been no specific rules citations to back up any of those comments. So, all other things being equal, my point (and a couple others here), say there can be a situation where A1 can be called for the player-control foul, even though B1's foot is on the line OOB.

Do you follow the logic?

New example to illustrate the point
 

Here is a new twist to demonstrate the point...

For those that insist the foul is on the player who is OOB just because they are OOB, what is your call if they are both OOB?

Example: A1 loses the ball, an interrupted dribble, just before stepping on the line running into a stationary and OOB B1.

Double violation, and POI? :D

Sorry, my head hurts...I need a weekend, I think.

I do not disagree that there could be such a situation,
such as just bowling B1 over becuase he was there, pushing off with the arm, and several others that have probably been mentioned in this thread.

it is possible that you could call a PC foul here,

No player control during an interuppted dribble,
but yes you could have a foul on A1

OH, I think by your logic, you can choose between flagrant offensive, intentional offensive, or a block. I honestly don't see how you could ever go with PC if you consider the player to be illegal by virtue of his toe on the line.

Shouldn't you go with a double?

Whew...I'm think I'm starting to make a little headway.

Now you see my point. There are others that have said you can never have a PC, only because the defender had their foot on the line. Iow, they have an "illegal position" and the only calls could be a block or no-call.

If the defender is not "gaurding" the player with the ball. If they are "guarding," remember the definition from earlier, then they must have LGP and, also from earlier, you can't ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN legal gaurding position OOB.

Where's your cite for this?

From the definition of guarding that I posted earlier. Do you not remember, or are you forgetting b/c it makes my point?

Rule 4 Sec. 35 Art 1 Defines Guarding - Guarding shall be the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. The guarding position shall be initially established and then maintained on the playing court.

If you don't consider the defense to be guarding, then LGP doesn't apply. If you consider them to be "guarding" then they must establish and maintain LGP. That is why the rules that tell you that fall under the guarding definition.:rolleyes:

I'll have to find this tonight in the book, but I thought you were quoting NCAA rules.

Is it your contention that if A1 gets the ball, B1 is between him and the basket with one foot in the air, A1 can run by him and knock him over if he does it before B1 gets his foot down to establish LGP even though B1 is stationary?

That is the NCAA rule. I believe that the HS rule is the same though. See next post!

High school rules to come to the same conclusion for the OP, BLOCK!

Rule 4-23-1 Defines Guarding: Guarding is the acti of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
Rule 4-23-2 Defines Initial LGP: To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent
Rule 4-35-1 Defines Player Location: The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where the player is touching the floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out of bounds
Rule 4-9-1 and 2 Defines Inbounds/OOB: 1) Boundary lines of the court consist of end lines and sidelines. 2) The inside edges of these lines define the inbounds and out-of-bounds areas
Rule 4-7-1 Defines Blocking: Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball
Rule 4-7-2a and b Defines Charging that we are talking about:
Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponents torso.
a. A player who is moving witht he ball is required to stop or change direction to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained a legal guarding position in his/her path.
b. If a guard has obtained a legal guarding position, the player with the ball must get his/her head and shoulders past the torso of the defensive player....

So, if you consider the defender in the OP to be "guarding," then that player has never established LGP b/c the player did not have both feet inbounds. If the player never established LGP, then the player is illegally in the path of the offense. If the defense is illegally in the path, then the defense is responsible for the contact.
You are arguing that the defender had LGP when by rule he didn't. Never established w/ both feet inbounds. If he did establish it at one point w/ both feet inbounds, then he had to have moved in order for a foot to end up OOB, in which case case play 4.23.3 B is the correct case which says that it is a BLOCK.

Definition of charge says that the player had to legally be in front of the defender. See previous posts, with rules included, as to why the defender in the OP is not legally w/in the path of the offense.

No, I'm not arguing the defender had LGP. I'm arguing LGP is not required. Your high school rule citation does not state a stationary defender has to gain and maintain LGP. At the very least, a player with inbounds status is entitled to his spot on the floor whether or not he has LGP. Do you deny this?

In order to be guarding you have to have LGP. That is why it is defined in the definition of guarding. It also states in that same rule (definition of guarding) what is required to obtain it.

What is "legally placing the body in the path" mean to you then? You are falling back to the spot on the floor argument which I have refuted with the definition of Player Location. The player is not on the floor legally.

This is just wrong. You're conflating the idea of guarding, as defined in 4-23-1 with the more specific "Legal Guarding Position" as defined in the rest of 4-23. You're also completely ignoring "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." This comes prior to even a mention of LGP for a reason; it's the primary rule for judging contact.

LGP grants a player the ability to be innocent of contact even if they don't get to a spot first. I've never seen or heard anyone claim a stationary defender has to have LGP.


Consider this play: A1 gets the ball, B1 is between him and the basket with one foot in the air, A1 runs by him and knocks him over before B1 gets his foot down to establish LGP. Both players fall down. What's your call?

No I'm not conflating guarding. As defined it says legally placing themselves in front of the ball handler. I take legally getting there to mean that they are also legal once they get there, so,if the player is STANDING OOB, then that player is not in a spot, wait for it, "on the playing court." In the example you gave, I've got a block. They are both moving and that requires that the defense gets both feet established for LGP. Since you said before he gets his second foot down, easy call. If he had established LGP by getting his foot down then he can move to maintain and whether or not both feet are on the ground is irrelevent, unless 1 foot is OOB!

I'm done with arguing my point. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. We will have to agree to disagree. But I'm right!;)

Fair enough, but I'll say that just because B1 has his foot in the air does not mean he's moving. You are the only person I've ever seen or heard argue that a stationary defender requires LGP. I'm done as well, as it appears we can do nothing more at this point than point out Big Ben to the kids.

I did find this on-line. It is from the MHSAA (Michigan). Look at slides 59 and 60, which appear to be from an NFHS powerpoint that year. Not sure if it proves my point or yours, but I can't find anything else and I don't have my books from that year still.

http://www.mhsaa.com/games/sports/bbb/0304bbbweb.pdf

It has been a fun debate though.:)

A real world play. A1 has a breakaway layup. His momentum carries him past the basket and he has one foot on the baseline when he's unceremoniously run over by B1, who came from a different direction to attempt a shot block and whose momentum has also carried him beyond the basket.

Anybody NOT have a foul on B1 here, even though A1 clearly has a foot on the line?

My 2nd Worst Nightmare
 

Late last season, I was trail and my partner blew the whistle, first giving the offensive foul mechanic & then switching to a call on the defense. The worst nightmare would be ME doing it.

Well, it's not Big Ben, but it is in Europe. . .

http://www.geocities.com/danahillrem...d/vacation.jpg

It Was Easier Giving Up Problem Gambling ...
 

Please stop tempting me. Five weeks. Not a single image.

In time, you won't even see the images.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB01371...3BEA14FA21C%7D

I had this discussion in pregame over the weekend and this play was brought up
defender B3 is guarding A3 in the lane - as A1 drives to the basket A3 rolls down the lane line toward the low block B3 remains stationary and maintains his position in the lane sideways (hips and shoulders) toward A1, but having been sationary for several seconds prior to contact initiated by A1 as he drives toward basket?

B3 by rule never establishes "legal guarding position" as he never faced up to the offensive player, however B3 has had a stationary position for several seconds prior to any contatct and does nothing to inititate the contact, are you going to call this a block because of no LGP? :confused:

Good question. Are you saying LGP isn't relevant here? :D

For the moment I am going to keep my opinion of this play to myself, I am asking the question to see where it goes.

Chicken. :D

LGP (or lack thereof) has never been the sole requirement for being able to draw a player-control foul. It is only applicable in certain situations, mainly when the offensive and defensive players are moving. So a defender could certainly not have LGP, and still draw a player-control foul.

So, in your play immediately above, some of us (myself included), say A1 should be called for the player-control foul. Others have said there is no way A1 could be called for a player-control, because they did not have legal position (on the court). However, that is <B>not</B> the reason the case play states as why B1 is charged with a blocking foul - the reason stated is lack of LGP.

So, change the conditions of the case play slightly, and B1 could certainly draw the charge.