Block / Charge Situation

[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?

[M&M Guy]

...head...about...to explode...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...head...about...to explode...

You know what. My inner Dan is about to come out and play.

[M&M Guy]

I'm going to lunch.

I may go to the Guiness and Bud Light buffet.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm going to lunch.

I may go to the Guiness and Bud Light buffet.

Oy, talk about night and day.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Oy, talk about night and day.

Don't worry - they were at different ends of the buffet table.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You know what. My inner Dan is about to come out and play.

This topic could use a few "Dan-isms" right about now...it gets a little ridiculous after 13 pages. The OP is a specific situation where the defender - who could quite possibly NOT be responsible for intitating the contact - is guilty of a blocking foul due to the fact that they had a foot OOB. Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me.

[Adam]

Rocky, that case play is all about LGP. LGP is lost due to the foot out of bounds; it seems clear to me that this case play does not apply if LGP isn't an issue.

[just another ref]

This thread was a revelation to me. Since this adjustment to the rule came out, I was one of those who had been saying if the defender had one foot touching the line, the dribbler could step on his face and the call would still be a block, regardless of how long the defender had been there. The argument that the inbounds thing is a LGP thing is a good one. I was relieved that this had been brought to my attention, and annoyed that it had not occurred to me before. Moreover, I am glad that, to date, I have never made a block call based on the fact that the defender touched the line.

BUT, the thing that I find disturbing is this. In 4.23.3 B apparently the defender does everything right except the fact that he touches the sideline. They make a point of stressing this, I think, when they tell us that it's okay to extend out over the out of bounds area. So the message here that I get is that it's not to much to ask for the defender not to touch the out of bounds area. This is reasonable to me, if plainly stated.

The part that is not absolutely plain to me, is whether this requirement was intended to apply to a stationary defender. If it is not too much to ask for the moving defender to avoid touching the line, it also is not to much to ask for the stationary defender to follow the same guidelines. I would like to see the following case play:

A1 is guarded by B1 in the backcourt. As A1 nears the sideline, B2 leaves his man and they attempt to trap A1 at the division line. B2 sets up at the sideline when A1 is 10 feet away. A1 notices that B2's foot is touching the sideline so he runs straight into B2.

Ruling: PC on A1. LGP does not apply in this situation.

or

Ruling: Blocking foul on B2. B2 is not in a legal defensive position since he is
touching the out of bounds area.

[jdw3018]

Good call, jar. Some type of explicit ruling would be welcome.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Simple - by the rule stating he's not.

Which rule is that?

Which rule is it that says he's not?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

Which rule is it that says he's not?

I knew I would lose you. You're asking my question.

My statement:

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.

Your response:

Originally Posted by Texref

How is he not????

My question:
Which rule do you use to back up your statement/question that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I knew I would lose you. You're asking my question.

My statement:


Your response:


My question:
Which rule do you use to back up your statement/question that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact?

You're right I typed to fast. The rule I'm using is the one that says that the player does NOT have a legal spot, nor is he entitled to the spot that he is in as long as his foot is OOB. What rule are you using to say that he can LEGALLY be OOB (again the definition of Player Location is that if the player is touching OOB, the player is OOB) and draw a foul?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

You're right I typed to fast. The rule I'm using is the one that says that the player does NOT have a legal spot, nor is he entitled to the spot that he is in as long as his foot is OOB.

I've never seen this rule; which rule is that?