Block / Charge Situation

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

The case play says it all. This is a block. This is exactly what the Fed wants us to call. I don't like anymore than you. Belive me, I don't. But we have to call it the way the Fed wants. Do you not agree that the case play is exactly the same scenario as the OP? If so, then you have to agree this is a block. If you are going to allow the defense to be out of bounds on this play, then you have to allow the offense to step on the line to avoid contacting a defender who is near the line but not on it. We can't give the defense an advantage the offense doesn't get. We can't give them more space on the floor than the offense.

[Adam]

No, the case play is not exactly the same. The case play specifically refers to LGP; which is completely irrelevant to a stationary defender.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

The case play says it all. This is a block. This is exactly what the Fed wants us to call. I don't like anymore than you. Belive me, I don't. But we have to call it the way the Fed wants. Do you not agree that the case play is exactly the same scenario as the OP? If so, then you have to agree this is a block. If you are going to allow the defense to be out of bounds on this play, then you have to allow the offense to step on the line to avoid contacting a defender who is near the line but not on it. We can't give the defense an advantage the offense doesn't get. We can't give them more space on the floor than the offense.

Again. The case play has NOTHING to do with a stationary defender. It is all about LGP. And by definition, to have LGP, a defender must be inbounds.

We're discussing a stationary defender, so the case play is completely and entirely irrelevant.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Again. The case play has NOTHING to do with a stationary defender. It is all about LGP. And by definition, to have LGP, a defender must be inbounds.

We're discussing a stationary defender, so the case play is completely and entirely irrelevant.

No where in the case play does it say the defender was moving at the point of contact. You are inferring movement.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

No problem.

How did your finger get injured? Were you trying to flip off your CO?

[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.