Block / Charge Situation

[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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Guarding.

[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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. What if the defender was lost, facing the opposite direction, and didn't even know the player with the ball was there? He is completely stationary, has the edge of his foot on the line, and the offensive player basically runs him over?

I'll also say that if the Fed wanted us to address a stationary defender with a foot on the line, they could have written a case play addressing exactly that. Instead they wrote one specifically addressing LGP, which again, has no application here.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I'll also say that if the Fed wanted us to address a stationary defender with a foot on the line, they could have written a case play addressing exactly that. Instead they wrote one specifically addressing LGP, which again, has no application here.

They did. It's 4.23.3.B and LGP does apply. But I bet you knew I was going to say that.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

and LGP does apply

Hold on a second!

I want to make sure I'm following - I was under the impression that you felt a LGP case should apply to a non-LGP situation because there wasn't a specific non-LGP case. But from your quote above, it appears that you're saying that LGP applies to all these situations? Is that right?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Hold on a second!

I want to make sure I'm following - I was under the impression that you felt a LGP case should apply to a non-LGP situation because there wasn't a specific non-LGP case. But from your quote above, it appears that you're saying that LGP applies to all these situations? Is that right?

In the OP and the case play, LGP applies. The other cases that have been mentioned alter the scenario enough for other rules to take effect. A player who is on the playing court with his back to A1, is not defending A1. They are entitled to their spot on the floor and can not be displaced. These facts don't apply to the OP. The player was defending A1 and as such has to be in LGP. The player was out of bonds. The other scenario involved a player attempting to get a foul called by flopping. Again this is a different scenario.
You can't give the defense the right to stand out of bounds and allow them to play defense. A stationary player with LGP is protected but a stationary player can still be called for a foul. B1 is stationary and is facing A1. B1's legs are more than shoulder width apart. A1 goes around B1, but trips over B1's foot. What do you have?

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

Your Honor, move to strike - defendent is submitting facts not already in evidence... I did not say anywhere that there was a flop; in fact, my point is the dribbler saw the defender standing on the line, and purposely ran into the defender, causing enough contact to knock himself over. Iow, the dribbler initiated contact. Why is it still a block?

Let me change the play slightly - A2 is being guarded and being forced on a path toward B1, who is looking at the coach and has one foot on the sideline. A2 sticks out their forearm and knocks B1 out of the way so they can get by. No severe contact, just a simple push off by the dribbler. Are you saying this can never be a player-control foul, because B1 has a foot on the line?

Maybe we've lost track about the discussion. In the OP, I believe we are all assuming the defender is trying to obtain or maintain LGP by stepping into the path of the offense, and at the moment of contact, the defender's foot is on the line - therefore, we all agree it's a block, as per 4.23.3 Sit B. No problem there. I think we also agree that any player is entitled to their spot on the floor, whether or not there is LGP established, if an offensive player initiates contact, correct? Where we disagree is whether the defender's foot being OOB automatically makes them responsible for the contact, even if the defender is stationary. My contention is that the case play states directly the reason for the block is because of "forfeiture" of LGP by being OOB. It does not say the defender has "illegal status" by being OOB. In fact, this is supported by the fact it is part of the "Guarding" section of the rules. So, simply being OOB does not mean that player has forfeited their right to draw a player-control foul. It only means they have forfeited their LGP. That's the difference.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Your Honor, move to strike - defendent is submitting facts not already in evidence... I did not say anywhere that there was a flop; in fact, my point is the dribbler saw the defender standing on the line, and purposely ran into the defender, causing enough contact to knock himself over. Iow, the dribbler initiated contact. Why is it still a block?

Move to strike denied. You opened the door, councilor. Opposing council is allowed this line of questioning/reasoning. The fact of the matter, your honor, is that the player tried to draw a foul. That is a T'able offense. I've never called it myself, but I've certainly ignored.

Here are the simple facts. The defense is allowed certain movements when defending. One of them however is not standing out of bounds. The case play is clear on that. No where in the case play does it say that the defender is called for a block because he was moving. No where does it say that he was moving. It simply says that the defender was not in LGP because he was out of bounds which is why he was called for a block.

Defense rests!

Man this is fun!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

Here are the simple facts. The defense is allowed certain movements when defending. One of them however is not standing out of bounds.
The case play is clear on that.

Standing and moving are mutually exclusive states.

Originally Posted by rwest

No where in the case play does it say that the defender is called for a block because he was moving. No where does it say that he was moving.

Yes it does (say he was moving). How can the defender "stay in the path of A1" without moving?

Originally Posted by rwest

It simply says that the defender was not in LGP because he was out of bounds which is why he was called for a block.

Exactly...and the reason LGP was relevant to begin with was because the defender was doing something (moving) that, to be legal, requires LGP in the event of contact.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Standing and moving are mutually exclusive states.

Yes it does (say he was moving). How can the defender "stay in the path of A1" without moving?


Exactly...and the reason LGP was relevant to begin with was because the defender was doing something (moving) that, to be legal, requires LGP in the event of contact.

No it doesn't say the defender was moving. Here's an example, A1 moves to get around B1. B1 moves obliquely to stay in his path and then STOPS! But his foot is on the line. He no longer has LGP but moved (past tense) to stay in his path. I can make one movement to stay in your path and then stop moving. The ruling in the case play was that the player did not have LGP because he was on the line. Don't you think if they wanted us to call a block because he was moving they would have said so? Besides, one can move and still have LGP. As long as it is not into the player. If movement was the issue the case play would have made it clear that the defender was moving into the player with the ball. That's not why the case play calls for a block. Its because he was on the line. That's why he didn't have LGP. Not because of movement. Its clear the the Case Play is calling a block because the player doesn't have LGP. LGP was lost because he was on the line, not because he was moving.