Block / Charge Situation

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

A/D. No foul.

Really, you have a previously stationary defender now laying on the floor due to contact initiated by the offense. No foul?

[jritchie]

If he knocked him to the floor, there must of been a little more than a graze! If not and A1 has a layup let them go and shoot it, if not definitely a block "still", because of the foot being on the line and you can't be in legal guarding position whether they initiated contact or not!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jritchie

If he knocked him to the floor, there must of been a little more than a graze! If not and A1 has a layup let them go and shoot it, if not definitely a block "still", because of the foot being on the line and you can't be in legal guarding position whether they initiated contact or not!

A stationary defender does not need LGP, so not having LGP is not relevant to this play.

[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?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

Who created the contact is not the only determining factor. If the defender is stationary, but has his arm sticking out in the dribbler's path, and the dribbler contacts the arm...

Well, I'm sure the janitor cleaned up after him, if you know what I mean.

[Texref]

My call: Block! Easy call w/ player standing out of bounds

For those tied up on the fact that a player is entitled to their spot on the floor:
Location of player: The location of a player is determined by where they are touching the floor, as far as being in bounds or out of bounds.

If a player is touching the floor out of bounds, they are not on the playing floor? Therefore the player is not entitled to that spot on the floor b/c they are considered out of bounds. A player cannot be out of bounds and take a charge.

[Adam]

If you can't call him for a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason, he's still on the playing floor.

If he's not on the playing floor, you need to call the violation as soon as he leaves. This is not a block.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

A spot on the playing court if the player has a foot on the line s/he is NOT on the Playing court!

SECTION 13 COURT AREAS
ART. 1 . . . The frontcourt of a team consists of that part of the court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of the backboard.
ART. 2 . . . The backcourt of a team consists of the rest of the court, including the entire division line and the opponent's basket and inbounds part of the opponent's backboard.