Block / Charge Situation

[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.