Block / Charge Situation

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

But, that rule says it's a blocking foul because there is no LGP established or maintained. So, right before contact, all we have is a defender that does not have LGP in front of an offensive player with the ball.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But, that rule says it's a blocking foul because there is no LGP established or maintained. So, right before contact, all we have is a defender that does not have LGP in front of an offensive player with the ball.

I'm not arguing LGP. In fact nowhere in any of my responses has LGP even been brought up. YOu are now confusing me with rwest. In order to call a violation on the defense, WHICH I WOULD NOT DO, you use the rule that it is a violation to leave the court for an unauthorized reason. I'm using the argument that you are using. You said that the player is entitled to a spot anywhere on the playing court. Correct? On that we both agree! I'm saying that this player, IN THE OP, is not entitled to the spot b/c he is not "ON THE PLAYING SURFACE" by definition of player location.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

I'm not arguing LGP. In fact nowhere in any of my responses has LGP even been brought up. YOu are now confusing me with rwest. In order to call a violation on the defense, WHICH I WOULD NOT DO, you use the rule that it is a violation to leave the court for an unauthorized reason. I'm using the argument that you are using. You said that the player is entitled to a spot anywhere on the playing court. Correct? On that we both agree! I'm saying that this player, IN THE OP, is not entitled to the spot b/c he is not "ON THE PLAYING SURFACE" by definition of player location.

Then this should be a violation if it wasn't an authorized reason. If stepping on the line equals leaving the court, then the player needs a valid reason to do so. In this case, there is no difference between a player stepping on the line and stepping four feet out of bounds if he does it to cross the lane and get open.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

I'm not arguing LGP. In fact nowhere in any of my responses has LGP even been brought up... I'm saying that this player, IN THE OP, is not entitled to the spot b/c he is not "ON THE PLAYING SURFACE" by definition of player location.

That is my whole point - LGP is the main point of this discussion. I keep bringing it up because that is the reason for the blocking foul. Both you and rwest state the only reason for the foul is because the defender is OOB. There is an important distinction between LGP, and "player location".

Please, look at the case play again, and quote for me the reason B1 is called for a blocking foul in both the case play.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That is my whole point - LGP is the main point of this discussion. I keep bringing it up because that is the reason for the blocking foul. Both you and rwest state the only reason for the foul is because the defender is OOB. There is an important distinction between LGP, and "player location".

Please, look at the case play again, and quote for me the reason B1 is called for a blocking foul in both the case play.

No, LGP is the main point of rwest's argument, NOT MINE. I'm not using it b/c it is not relevent to this play. The player's location is and that is what my whole basis for calling a block is, as indicated by my previous post.

Now will either you or jdw please provide a rule reference to call the player control foul like I have provided? Thanks.

****EDITED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING THIS IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE BUT...****In fact, if you read it this way (I DON'T), BY rule in order for the player to be entitled to a spot, then he has to be considered guarding somebody since that is where it falls in the rule book! If a player is guarding someone, then they have to have LGP. LGP can't be established or maintained if the player is OOB. That could be an argument for rwest's point of view on this as well.****EDITED TO ADD THE PREVIOUSTHAT IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE BUT...****