Block / Charge Situation

[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?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rwest

In the OP and the case play, LGP applies.

This is one place we (somewhat) disagree. In the case play, LGP definitely applies because that's what the case play is all about. In the OP, LGP only applies if the defender is moving. If the defender is stationary, then a lot of things apply but LGP isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

This we agree on 100%.

Originally Posted by rwest

These facts don't apply to the OP.

This we disagree on.

Originally Posted by rwest

The player was defending A1 and as such has to be in LGP.

This is simply a false statement.

Other factors we've been talking about (like displacement for example) always apply. LGP simply gives a defender additional rights to move and maintain a position that forces the offensive player to be responsible for contact. But there is no requirement that for a PC foul to be called that a defender facing an opponent has to have LGP.

Originally Posted by rwest

You can't give the defense the right to stand out of bounds and allow them to play defense.

This is debatable. You can't allow a defender to intentionally leave the playing for to gain an advantage. That's a violation. Also, by definition, a player cannot obtain or maintain LGP while OOB. But I have yet to see anything that says a player can't defend while standing on a line.

Originally Posted by rwest

A stationary player with LGP is protected but a stationary player can still be called for a foul.

Of course a player with LGP can commit a foul. All rules of illegal contact still apply to a player with LGP - LGP just helps define who is responsible for contact.