Block / Charge Situation

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Texref

... if you want to call the violation for being OOB illegally, I can see that ...

I have a big problem with calling a violation for leaving the floor in this situation, because though he is no longer on the playing floor, he has not left for an unauthorized reason.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I have a big problem with calling a violation for leaving the floor in this situation, because though he is no longer on the playing floor, he has not left for an unauthorized reason.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that call either! I've stated a couple of times that this is absolutely a BLOCK by rule. All I was saying is that I can see calling the violation for being OOB. What was the "authorized" reason the player left the floor?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Texref

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that call either! I've stated a couple of times that this is absolutely a BLOCK by rule. All I was saying is that I can see calling the violation for being OOB. What was the "authorized" reason the player left the floor?

Rule 9-3-3 does not cover this. Intent is required. Every case play regarding this rule has the word intent except for 9.3.3.A, and even that one it is obvious that intent was there. So if you have a violation every time a player goes out of bounds then what do you have on this play? B1 steals the ball from A1 but in so doing loses his balance. Before stepping out of bounds he bats the ball ahead to B2 who has an unobstructed lane to the basket. Before B2 releases the ball on a shot, B1 steps out of bounds.

If your position is that stepping out of bounds is a violation, then you have to kill this play and award the ball to team A. Let's be consistent guys.

This is not a violation. Neither is the defender stepping out of bounds in the OP. We can't invent an interpretation of this rule to give us an out on calling the block. It's a block.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by rwest

Rule 9-3-3 does not cover this. Intent is required. Every case play regarding this rule has the word intent except for 9.3.3.A, and even that one it is obvious that intent was there. So if you have a violation every time a player goes out of bounds then what do you have on this play? B1 steals the ball from A1 but in so doing loses his balance. Before stepping out of bounds he bats the ball ahead to B2 who has an unobstructed lane to the basket. Before B2 releases the ball on a shot, B1 steps out of bounds.

If your position is that stepping out of bounds is a violation, then you have to kill this play and award the ball to team A. Let's be consistent guys.

This is not a violation. Neither is the defender stepping out of bounds in the OP. We can't invent an interpretation of this rule to give us an out on calling the block. It's a block.

I'm not arguing that it should be called a violation? I was just asking where you see he was OOB for an authorized reason. You answered. THanks.

And to answer the play in your example, the player left b/c he lost his balance, that is the same as his momentum taking him OOB. He did not intentionally leave the floor. I don't think the player in the OP intentionally left the floor either, in which case I've got a BLOCK. Very easy call IMO that should not have generated 4 pages of debate.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

Rule 9-3-3 does not cover this. Intent is required. Every case play regarding this rule has the word intent except for 9.3.3.A, and even that one it is obvious that intent was there. So if you have a violation every time a player goes out of bounds then what do you have on this play? B1 steals the ball from A1 but in so doing loses his balance. Before stepping out of bounds he bats the ball ahead to B2 who has an unobstructed lane to the basket. Before B2 releases the ball on a shot, B1 steps out of bounds.

If your position is that stepping out of bounds is a violation, then you have to kill this play and award the ball to team A. Let's be consistent guys.

This is not a violation. Neither is the defender stepping out of bounds in the OP. We can't invent an interpretation of this rule to give us an out on calling the block. It's a block.

Nobody is inventing a reason to give us an out on calling a block. What those of us arguing against the block are saying is that a defender stepping on a line does not give the offensive player the right the displace that stationary defender.

From your interpretation, a stationary defender who is touching the line has given up his right to be there. Therefore an offensive player may initiate any amount of contact in any area of the body, displacing the defender, and always draw the blocking foul.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that call either! I've stated a couple of times that this is absolutely a BLOCK by rule. All I was saying is that I can see calling the violation for being OOB. What was the "authorized" reason the player left the floor?

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.

[Adam]

Thanks, M&M. I can't type enough to say all that right now. Those are exactly my thoughts on this play.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I have a big problem with calling a violation for leaving the floor in this situation, because though he is no longer on the playing floor, he has not left for an unauthorized reason.

Would you call a violation on a player going around a screen if his foot ever-so-slightly touches the line?
My contention is that he has not left the playing court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

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.

I don't know how you make this distinction. Either defense is fair game or he's not.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't know how you make this distinction. Either defense is fair game or he's not.

Ok, how do you distinguish between a common foul and an intentional foul? Same idea. If the offense sees the defense is standing OOB and decides to bowl the defense over b/c they are OOB, then I've got the call against the offense.

How do you argue that the player is legally entitled to a "spot on the playing floor" when by rule, the player is not on the playing floor if he is standing OOB?

[OHBBREF]

I think we are stretching

almost everyone here agrees that you can not just bowl over the defender no matter where he is, it the contact by the ball handler is excessive the foul would be PC, and infact you could go to another extreeme and say intentional.
that is not the intent of the OP,
What we are referring to here is -a player going to the basket in the course of a normal drive who contacts a defender who has his foot on the line, there is enough contact that it can not be deemed incidental and requires a whistle.
So other than a blarge what have you got?