Block / Charge Situation

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's because I'm still mulling this one over, to be honest. The 4.23.3 point doesn't work, except only as basic precedent. Scrappy is right about the committee's desire to have the game played inbounds.

Here are my thoughts on it.

1. I've never heard anyone consider calling a violation on a player without the ball who steps on the line, regardless of the reason and intent. It's widely agreed that to even consider this violation, the player has to have gone completely OOB; not just step on the line.

2. Therefore, players who step on the line aren't considered to have left the playing court even though they may be considered out of bounds.

By definition of Player Location, if they are touching OOB, they are considered OOB. OOB is not considered to be part of the playing surface. Otherwise why do we call an OOB violation when they just barely touch the line?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

By definition of Player Location, if they are touching OOB, they are considered OOB. OOB is not considered to be part of the playing surface. Otherwise why do we call an OOB violation when they just barely touch the line?

Then are you going to call a violation on A2, when he steps on the baseline under the basket while using a screen?

Or, in the OP, are you going to call the defender for a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason when he steps on the line, inadvertently, while attempting to close the gap between him and the sideline?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then are you going to call a violation on A2, when he steps on the baseline under the basket while using a screen?

Or, in the OP, are you going to call the defender for a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason when he steps on the line, inadvertently, while attempting to close the gap between him and the sideline?

? In the scenario is A2 the screener or the one going around the screen? It doesn't make a difference by rule, I realize, just curious. To answer the question though, yes, that is a violation according to the FED, with case plays to back it no?

In the OP, I am calling the block as I don't feel the player left the court intentionally, but he is off the floor and as such is, IMO, responsible for the contact at that point. It's no different than a player who loses track of where they are and they accidentaly go OOB and realize it and come back in. By rule, violation, BUT, by spirit of the rule (didn't gain an advantage), no violation. I did say earlier that I can see the violation call (but I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE CORRECT CALL)and would be a lot more accepting of that over the player control foul. Somebody back on page 5 or 6 though did answer the question about this not being a violation. Sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and find where exactly now.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

By definition of Player Location, if they are touching OOB, they are considered OOB. OOB is not considered to be part of the playing surface. Otherwise why do we call an OOB violation when they just barely touch the line?

We do not call a violation on a player who steps OOB; I don't know of any competent official who does.

We do, however, call a violation on a player who causes the ball to be OOB: 9-3-1. So, how can a defender, who does not have the ball, be called for a violation?

9-3-2 addresses a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, and the committee has clearly stated that this involves intent. The committee has also clearly stated that plays involving momentum, etc. are allowed. So, if you feel the defender has stepped OOB on purpose, then, by all means, call the violation. But, if there is any doubt on intent, then the defender has only lost LGP, as per 4.23.3 B.

I have yet to see any rules backing for the claim that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact.

[Adam]

I disagree that intent is required here for the violation.
If A2 steps clearly OOB, you have no idea whether he knows he's out or not.
And, frankly, whether he steps on the line or a full foot OOB, his intent is the same. If you think he's intending to skirt around the player by stepping on the line, are you going to call this a violation.
Secondly, lets say the defender (in the OP) purposefully puts his foot on the line to close that gap. Are you going to call the violation?

My point is that if you define the playing court as completely in bounds for purposes of a stationary player being entitled to a spot, then you have to call this violation.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree that intent is required here for the violation.

Ok, then how would you describe the "intent" of this rule? We all know a player trying to save a ball while falling OOB and ending up there is perfectly acceptable. The player intended to go OOB after making the save, right? Perfectly legal. How about the player who drives hard to the basket for the layup, and knows they aren't going to stop before their momentum carries them OOB after the shot? Again, perfectly legal during normal play.

I'm saying "intent" follows the examples given: player purposely running around a screen, and a player stepping OOB to avoid the 3-sec. call; both involve a direct intent, and both seem to show going completely OOB. A player who is not watching where they are going and steps on the line doesn't seem to follow those examples of intent. Now, if you see the player look down, see they're still in-bounds, and then step on the line to make sure the offensive player can't get by, then that's another story.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We do not call a violation on a player who steps OOB; I don't know of any competent official who does.

We do, however, call a violation on a player who causes the ball to be OOB: 9-3-1. So, how can a defender, who does not have the ball, be called for a violation?

9-3-2 addresses a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, and the committee has clearly stated that this involves intent. The committee has also clearly stated that plays involving momentum, etc. are allowed. So, if you feel the defender has stepped OOB on purpose, then, by all means, call the violation. But, if there is any doubt on intent, then the defender has only lost LGP, as per 4.23.3 B.

I have yet to see any rules backing for the claim that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact.

M&M - spot on. Just wanted to add my agreement before I go back to being unproductive for the day...

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We do not call a violation on a player who steps OOB; I don't know of any competent official who does.

So a player dribbling the ball who steps on the line is not OOB? That is what I was infereing, sorry I didn't make myself clear.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

So a player dribbling the ball who steps on the line is not OOB? That is what I was infereing, sorry I didn't make myself clear.

Cool. So how can a defender, who does not have the ball, commit a violation?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Cool. So how can a defender, who does not have the ball, commit a violation?

I didn't say he was committing a violation? I said that, BY RULE, he is not legally entitled to the spot that he is standing in. I have never said that I would call the violation against the defender. I've said that I can see that call BEFORE I can see a Player Control Foul.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

I have never said that I would call the violation against the defender. I've said that I can see that call BEFORE I can see a Player Control Foul.

So, you're saying you can see calling the violation against the defender, BEFORE calling a player control foul?

Again, what rule do you use that dictates calling a violation against the defender?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, you're saying you can see calling the violation against the defender, BEFORE calling a player control foul?

Again, what rule do you use that dictates calling a violation against the defender?

The same rule that he uses to dictate calling the blocking foul.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I have yet to see any rules backing for the claim that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact.

How is he not???? Unless the offense INTENTIONALLY or FLAGRANTLY runs them over, the player is not LEGALLY in a spot "on the playing floor?"

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

How is he not????

Simple - by the rule stating he's not.

Which rule is that?

[Adam]

What about the offensive player (without the ball), going around a defender, who steps on the line because there wasn't room to avoid it?