Block / Charge Situation

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

I've got a block. You and I disagree on the relevance of the case play. The one thing that I think is clear, is that the Fed's handed us a mess with this interp. I don't like it, but I can see their logic. When this first came out I argued for the option to give a flagrant technical if I deemed the contact severe enough. However, on normal contact, I'm calling the block because that's what I believe the Feds want. Again, this is all based on the case play.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

I've got a block. You and I disagree on the relevance of the case play. The one thing that I think is clear, is that the Fed's handed us a mess with this interp. I don't like it, but I can see their logic. When this first came out I argued for the option to give a flagrant technical if I deemed the contact severe enough. However, on normal contact, I'm calling the block because that's what I believe the Feds want. Again, this is all based on the case play.

Yep, we definitely disagree about the relevance of the case play. I guess I'd just challenge whether you want to apply a case that is explicitly about legal guarding position and how it is maintained to a situation that doesn't - in any way shape or form - require legal guarding position.

Just something to think about!

[Adam]

Just curious since I don't have my books here.
What does rule 4-23 define?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Yep, we definitely disagree about the relevance of the case play. I guess I'd just challenge whether you want to apply a case that is explicitly about legal guarding position and how it is maintained to a situation that doesn't - in any way shape or form - require legal guarding position.

Just something to think about!

You make a good point, but I believe you are going against the very philosophy that prompted the Fed to go with this interp. You are giving the defense an advantage. You are allowing them to be out of bounds when you won't give the same right to the offense. In fact I believe the case play is right on point because it is that exact play and advantage the Fed wants to deal with. They don't want coaches to teach their players to plant one foot out of bounds on the base line to deny the player access to the basket. That's what was taught by coaches for years. And they taught the defender to remain still. There's your stationary defender and it is this exact play the Fed is addressing. I believe they are envisioning a stationary defender becasue that's how the coaches taught it and that'st they play they are addressing.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

I've got a block. You and I disagree on the relevance of the case play. The one thing that I think is clear, is that the Fed's handed us a mess with this interp. I don't like it, but I can see their logic. When this first came out I argued for the option to give a flagrant technical if I deemed the contact severe enough. However, on normal contact, I'm calling the block because that's what I believe the Feds want. Again, this is all based on the case play.

Let me give you one of those "third world" plays, and tell me how you would handle it.

B just scores right near the end of the game to go up by 1, with a few seconds left. A2 receives the inbounds pass after the basket, and sees B1 standing by sideline getting last-second instructions from the coach. A2 takes a couple of dribbles towards B1, who happens to have one foot on the sideline, facing the coach. A2, without any other pressure, bumps into B1 and goes down. So, B1 does not have LGP, by rule (not facing the opponent, in bounds, both feet on the ground, etc.). B1 is stationary.

Is your call a block on B1?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Let me give you one of those "third world" plays, and tell me how you would handle it.

B just scores right near the end of the game to go up by 1, with a few seconds left. A2 receives the inbounds pass after the basket, and sees B1 standing by sideline getting last-second instructions from the coach. A2 takes a couple of dribbles towards B1, who happens to have one foot on the sideline, facing the coach. A2, without any other pressure, bumps into B1 and goes down. So, B1 does not have LGP, by rule (not facing the opponent, in bounds, both feet on the ground, etc.). B1 is stationary.

Is your call a block on B1?

The player was trying to draw a foul! He flopped. So you either give him a T or ignore it. However, this play doesn't have the same elements. This scenario is nothing like the OP or the Case Play.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Let me give you one of those "third world" plays, and tell me how you would handle it.

B just scores right near the end of the game to go up by 1, with a few seconds left. A2 receives the inbounds pass after the basket, and sees B1 standing by sideline getting last-second instructions from the coach. A2 takes a couple of dribbles towards B1, who happens to have one foot on the sideline, facing the coach. A2, without any other pressure, bumps into B1 and goes down. So, B1 does not have LGP, by rule (not facing the opponent, in bounds, both feet on the ground, etc.). B1 is stationary.

Is your call a block on B1?

rule 10 section 1 Art 8 NCAA best describes this
A dribbler shall neither charge into not contact an opponent in the dribblers path not attampt to dribble inbetween two oppnents or between an opponent and a boundry, unless the space is sufficent to provide a reasonable chance for the dribbler to pass through with out contact.

and to conclude the other part of the argument
art 10
when a dribbler has obtained a straight line path, the dribbler may not be crowded out of that path; when an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path the dribbler shall avoid contact by changing direction or ending the dribble.
So the defender in the original OP is legal until that foot goes out OB

[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?