Block / Charge Situation

[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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

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

No, I'm not. The case play is specifically about legal guarding position and says the block is called because the defender has not maintained LGP. No inferences needed, and nobody is going to disagree here.

But the scenario we're discussing does not require LGP, so you can toss that case play.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

No, I'm not. The case play is specifically about legal guarding position and says the block is called because the defender has not maintained LGP. No inferences needed, and nobody is going to disagree here.

But the scenario we're discussing does not require LGP, so you can toss that case play.

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!

[Adam]

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!

That's just it. LGP isn't relevant if he's stationary. If he's moving, and LGP is an issue, then it's a block.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

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

In the case play, B1 has obtained LGP, which means they must be completely inbounds. Then B1 "stays in the path of A1, but has one foot touching the sideline". How did B1 get from LGP to "one foot on the sideline", without movement?