Block / Charge Situation

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

The case play is relevant. What will you call if B1 gets to the spot a split second before A1, but B1 is out of bounds? What if the displacement isn't violent, but A1 contacts B1 in the torso. I've got a block, because the defender is not entitled to that spot on the floor. He doesn't have LGP, just like in the case play.

I'm enjoying this debate, by the way! Its one of the best I've seen in a while!

Absolutely agree this has been a fun one!

Yours is a HTBT play. If it's the type of play with some movement and the defender needed LGP, then it's a block or nothing.

If he was clearly there and stationary (and therefore no longer needed LGP) before the offensive player contacted him in the torso, then it's either a PC foul or nothing.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Absolutely agree this has been a fun one!

Yours is a HTBT play. If it's the type of play with some movement and the defender needed LGP, then it's a block or nothing.

If he was clearly there and stationary (and therefore no longer needed LGP) before the offensive player contacted him in the torso, then it's either a PC foul or nothing.

I've got a block. You and I disagree on the relevance of the case play. The one thing that I think is clear, is that the Fed's handed us a mess with this interp. I don't like it, but I can see their logic. When this first came out I argued for the option to give a flagrant technical if I deemed the contact severe enough. However, on normal contact, I'm calling the block because that's what I believe the Feds want. Again, this is all based on the case play.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

I've got a block. You and I disagree on the relevance of the case play. The one thing that I think is clear, is that the Fed's handed us a mess with this interp. I don't like it, but I can see their logic. When this first came out I argued for the option to give a flagrant technical if I deemed the contact severe enough. However, on normal contact, I'm calling the block because that's what I believe the Feds want. Again, this is all based on the case play.

Yep, we definitely disagree about the relevance of the case play. I guess I'd just challenge whether you want to apply a case that is explicitly about legal guarding position and how it is maintained to a situation that doesn't - in any way shape or form - require legal guarding position.

Just something to think about!

[Adam]

Just curious since I don't have my books here.
What does rule 4-23 define?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

I've got a block. You and I disagree on the relevance of the case play. The one thing that I think is clear, is that the Fed's handed us a mess with this interp. I don't like it, but I can see their logic. When this first came out I argued for the option to give a flagrant technical if I deemed the contact severe enough. However, on normal contact, I'm calling the block because that's what I believe the Feds want. Again, this is all based on the case play.

Let me give you one of those "third world" plays, and tell me how you would handle it.

B just scores right near the end of the game to go up by 1, with a few seconds left. A2 receives the inbounds pass after the basket, and sees B1 standing by sideline getting last-second instructions from the coach. A2 takes a couple of dribbles towards B1, who happens to have one foot on the sideline, facing the coach. A2, without any other pressure, bumps into B1 and goes down. So, B1 does not have LGP, by rule (not facing the opponent, in bounds, both feet on the ground, etc.). B1 is stationary.

Is your call a block on B1?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just curious since I don't have my books here.
What does rule 4-23 define?

Guarding.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Yep, we definitely disagree about the relevance of the case play. I guess I'd just challenge whether you want to apply a case that is explicitly about legal guarding position and how it is maintained to a situation that doesn't - in any way shape or form - require legal guarding position.

Just something to think about!

You make a good point, but I believe you are going against the very philosophy that prompted the Fed to go with this interp. You are giving the defense an advantage. You are allowing them to be out of bounds when you won't give the same right to the offense. In fact I believe the case play is right on point because it is that exact play and advantage the Fed wants to deal with. They don't want coaches to teach their players to plant one foot out of bounds on the base line to deny the player access to the basket. That's what was taught by coaches for years. And they taught the defender to remain still. There's your stationary defender and it is this exact play the Fed is addressing. I believe they are envisioning a stationary defender becasue that's how the coaches taught it and that'st they play they are addressing.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Let me give you one of those "third world" plays, and tell me how you would handle it.

B just scores right near the end of the game to go up by 1, with a few seconds left. A2 receives the inbounds pass after the basket, and sees B1 standing by sideline getting last-second instructions from the coach. A2 takes a couple of dribbles towards B1, who happens to have one foot on the sideline, facing the coach. A2, without any other pressure, bumps into B1 and goes down. So, B1 does not have LGP, by rule (not facing the opponent, in bounds, both feet on the ground, etc.). B1 is stationary.

Is your call a block on B1?

The player was trying to draw a foul! He flopped. So you either give him a T or ignore it. However, this play doesn't have the same elements. This scenario is nothing like the OP or the Case Play.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

You make a good point, but I believe you are going against the very philosophy that prompted the Fed to go with this interp. You are giving the defense an advantage. You are allowing them to be out of bounds when you won't give the same right to the offense. In fact I believe the case play is right on point because it is that exact play and advantage the Fed wants to deal with. They don't want coaches to teach their players to plant one foot out of bounds on the base line to deny the player access to the basket. That's what was taught by coaches for years. And they taught the defender to remain still. There's your stationary defender and it is this exact play the Fed is addressing. I believe they are envisioning a stationary defender becasue that's how the coaches taught it and that'st they play they are addressing.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. What if the defender was lost, facing the opposite direction, and didn't even know the player with the ball was there? He is completely stationary, has the edge of his foot on the line, and the offensive player basically runs him over?

I'll also say that if the Fed wanted us to address a stationary defender with a foot on the line, they could have written a case play addressing exactly that. Instead they wrote one specifically addressing LGP, which again, has no application here.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I'll also say that if the Fed wanted us to address a stationary defender with a foot on the line, they could have written a case play addressing exactly that. Instead they wrote one specifically addressing LGP, which again, has no application here.

They did. It's 4.23.3.B and LGP does apply. But I bet you knew I was going to say that.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

and LGP does apply

Hold on a second!

I want to make sure I'm following - I was under the impression that you felt a LGP case should apply to a non-LGP situation because there wasn't a specific non-LGP case. But from your quote above, it appears that you're saying that LGP applies to all these situations? Is that right?

[doubleringer]

Both rules sets you have to call this a block. This is a LGP play and the defender did not establish LGP. Movement has nothing to do with it. If they are touching oob they are not on the playing floor. I don't like this rule, but that is the way we have to call it.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

Both rules sets you have to call this a block. This is a LGP play and the defender did not establish LGP. Movement has nothing to do with it. If they are touching oob they are not on the playing floor. I don't like this rule, but that is the way we have to call it.

Since when is a stationary defender a LGP play?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Hold on a second!

I want to make sure I'm following - I was under the impression that you felt a LGP case should apply to a non-LGP situation because there wasn't a specific non-LGP case. But from your quote above, it appears that you're saying that LGP applies to all these situations? Is that right?

In the OP and the case play, LGP applies. The other cases that have been mentioned alter the scenario enough for other rules to take effect. A player who is on the playing court with his back to A1, is not defending A1. They are entitled to their spot on the floor and can not be displaced. These facts don't apply to the OP. The player was defending A1 and as such has to be in LGP. The player was out of bonds. The other scenario involved a player attempting to get a foul called by flopping. Again this is a different scenario.
You can't give the defense the right to stand out of bounds and allow them to play defense. A stationary player with LGP is protected but a stationary player can still be called for a foul. B1 is stationary and is facing A1. B1's legs are more than shoulder width apart. A1 goes around B1, but trips over B1's foot. What do you have?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you are sure the player left the court on purpose and with specific intent, then yes, it's a violation. The examples given on this violation are pretty clear - running around a screen OOB, or stepping out of the lane OOB to avoid a 3-second call, all seem to show clear intent to be OOB. I also know the Fed. has made it clear that momentum carrying a player OOB is acceptable. So if the defender was simply trying to get in front of the offensive player and their momentum caused them to go OOB, then there is no violation. So, unless you can show me the defender stepped OOB on purpose and with specific intent, then I've got to assume their momentum carried them to that spot, which eliminates that particular violation from this discussion.

Which brings us to the case play mentioned, 4.23.3B - this play has to do with LGP specifically. Notice the play says the defender obtains LGP, but is called for the blocking foul because they did not maintain LGP at the time of the contact, not because the defender violated by being OOB. That tells me the only issue involved in this discussion is LGP.

So, can an offensive player be called for a charge against a defensive player that does not have LGP? Sure. Can a stationary defensive player, without LGP, be called for a block, when the offensive player initiates contact? I would like to see the rules backing for that one.

Your rule is the rule you are using saying the player is entitled to a spot on the playing floor. By having a foot OOB, the player is not on the Playing floor. That is made clear by the rule establishing Player Location. If a player is not legally in a spot to take an offensive foul, then the player who is OOB is responsible for the contact.

FWIW, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A VIOLATION ON THE DEFENSE. IT IS A BLOCK!!!!

I am going to respectfully disagree with those of you who say that the play in the OP is a player control foul. And having time to think about it a little, I don't think you have an option to call a player control in this situation. If the offense bowls over the defense w/ intent, then I have an intentional foul. For those that ask how I make that distinction, if you have ever called an intentional, or flagrant, you know it when you see it. You and I may have a different standard as to when we call it, but you know it when you see it.