Block / Charge Situation

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

4-23-3-a does not require movement. They are in violation of LGP because their foot is on the line. A stationary player is judged using LGP in this case based on the fact that the case play says that the player was called for a block. Why? Because they did not have LGP. Why did they not LGP? Because they were on the line not because they were moving.

Almost. You're missing the most fundamental point....not all fouls depend on LGP.

Rule 4-23-3 is all about LGP...nothing more. It does not define fouls or who is responsible for contact beyond the indirect effect of LGP influencing fouls that depend on LGP.

The matching casebook play is written in the explicit context of LGP. It is simply demonstrating that a player who is attemping to maintain LGP (to stay in the path of the dribbler) through otherwise legal defensive actions loses that LGP when they step OOB and that any foul that would have depended on having LGP is now a block. An important part of the play is that the defender was moving to stay in the path of the dribbler....necessitating LGP to be legal.

Take the same play to the center of the court and change one thing to cause the defender to lose LGP...the player was moving toward the dribbler at the time of contact. It is a block. Why? Becuase the defender didn't have LGP. That's all.

Now, put that same defender stationary in the middle of the court but facing away from the dribbler when the dribbler crashes into the defender's back. Does the defender have LGP? No...was never facing the opponent. However, what is the foul? Charge/PC. Why? Because the call doesn't depend on LGP.

While many officials read that play to mean all OOB fouls are blocks, it is not true. It is taken completely out of context to come to that conclusion. The ONLY thing it says is that a player who is OOB can not have LGP and that leads the conclusion that any foul that depends on LGP becomes a block. All other fouls are unaffected.