Block / Charge Situation

[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.

[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.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I would go with that before a player control. I'm still calling a block though

also, why would this be different than a player who has established LGP (not relevent in the OP) and going OOB to maintain it and getting called for a block. Why not call the violation for leaving the floor first? (Situation 7 from 03-04 rule interps) I believe the intent is the same, that a player must be on the floor (playing court) in order to draw a PC foul.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Ummm, no. But he has left the playing floor for an authorized reason. Thus no violation.

Edited to add: From the interps: A player's momentum, after performing legal actions on the court, resulting in taking him/her out of bounds is not a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason.

[Adam]

My point is that a player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

[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.

[Adam]

A player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

So a player w/ the ball touching the line is NOT out of bounds? That is what you are saying with that statement. If a player is touching out of bounds, they are, by definition, out of bounds. What is hard to understand about that?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Texref

So a player w/ the ball touching the line is NOT out of bounds? That is what you are saying with that statement. If a player is touching out of bounds, they are, by definition, out of bounds. What is hard to understand about that?

Not to speak for Snaqs, but there's nothing hard to understand about that.

Where there is disagreement is whether having OOB status prohibits a stationary player from having any legal protection from being charged over. I'm with those who say that's not true. That player may not have legal guarding position, but he doesn't need it because he's stationary.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Not to speak for Snaqs, but there's nothing hard to understand about that.

Where there is disagreement is whether having OOB status prohibits a stationary player from having any legal protection from being charged over. I'm with those who say that's not true. That player may not have legal guarding position, but he doesn't need it because he's stationary.

I understand he is stationary, but he is OOB! The rules state you have to be on the playing court. Like I said in the initial reply to snaqs, if you want to call the violation for being OOB illegally, I can see that, but this is not a player control b/c the player is not legally on the playing surface to take the foul.

I agree that if it is a flagrant act, or an obvious attempt to just bowl the defense over b/c he is OOB, absolutely call the offensive foul. But by the defense not being on the playing court, b/c they have a foot OOB, they are not entitled to draw a PC foul.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Was B1 stationary? PC foul. B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB.

Was B1 moving? More difficult. By stepping OOB, B1 has given up his legal guarding status, but that doesn't mean A1 is entitled to barrel over him. If the contact is such that legal guarding status is required for a PC foul to be called, then it's not a PC foul.

This is the reason the Fed came out with this interp a fews year back. If an offensive player (with or without the ball) can not go out of bounds, then we can not allow a defensive player to be out of bounds. If you allow this, then you are giving an advantage to the defense. They both have to play within the confines of the playing court. The defense is not entitled to any spot on the "floor" but on the playing court, which does not include the lines.