Block / Charge Situation

[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

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.

[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

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 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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[jdw3018]

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. 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?

I'm not familiar w/ this one...can you cite it for me?

[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.

[OHBBREF]

bartender more Tequilla for my friends!!

at least then I have a good reason for this head ache.

[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.