Block / Charge Situation

[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...****

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Texref

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.

10-6-7...A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path...

How's that?

[Texref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

10-6-7...A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path...

How's that?

We will have to agree to disagree. I've made my argument and will stick by it. Maybe MTD can email Mary and get the question resolved

[Texref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

10-6-7...A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path...

How's that?

Definition of charge says that the player had to legally be in front of the defender. See previous posts, with rules included, as to why the defender in the OP is not legally w/in the path of the offense.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

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.

That's the whole problem - it is entirely relevent to this play. So, if you do not have your books handy, maybe you should refrain from commenting until you have them in front of you? Again, case play 4.23.3 Sit B is the relevent play.

Originally Posted by Texref

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

Sure - 4-19-6

[Texref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That's the whole problem - it is entirely relevent to this play. So, if you do not have your books handy, maybe you should refrain from commenting until you have them in front of you? Again, case play 4.23.3 Sit B is the relevent play.



Sure - 4-19-6

If you are using LGP, then this play is a BLOCK based on the case play and we don't need to argue!!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

If you are using LGP, then this play is a BLOCK based on the case play and we don't need to argue!!!

We've all said that if LGP is required on this play, it's a block. This player does not have LGP, but he does not need LGP if he is not moving.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Texref

If you are using LGP, then this play is a BLOCK based on the case play and we don't need to argue!!!

We all agree the OP's play is a foul, if the defender was moving to obtain or maintain LGP.

The question arose as to whether a stationary defender, can still draw the charge, even if they have a foot on the line (OOB status).

Not including this particular play, I believe we can all agree that, in certain situations, a player can be called for a player-control foul against a defender that does not have LGP, correct?

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Everyone who has posted in this thread agrees with that.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We all agree the OP's play is a foul, if the defender was moving to obtain or maintain LGP.

The question arose as to whether a stationary defender, can still draw the charge, even if they have a foot on the line (OOB status).

Not including this particular play, I believe we can all agree that, in certain situations, a player can be called for a player-control foul against a defender that does not have LGP, correct?

yep
A1 driving to the basket B1 is running parralell to A1 haveing never establish LGP, A1 changes direction toward B1 and lowers shoulder to initiate contact and go through B1 to get to the basket.

PC foul and we go the other way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

yep
A1 driving to the basket B1 is running parralell to A1 haveing never establish LGP, A1 changes direction toward B1 and lowers shoulder to initiate contact and go through B1 to get to the basket.

PC foul and we go the other way.

There are lots of options. B1 standing still, looking at his coach for a signal, and A1 runs by him, brushing him hard enough to knock him down.

Or a rebound, B1 facing the basket, ball goes to A1 behind him. A1 grabs it and charges through B1 before B1 has a chance to turn around.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

yep
A1 driving to the basket B1 is running parralell to A1 haveing never establish LGP, A1 changes direction toward B1 and lowers shoulder to initiate contact and go through B1 to get to the basket.

PC foul and we go the other way.

Hmm, actually B1 could have LGP in this particular case.

Perhaps a better example would A1 driving to the basket, B2 is guarding A2 on the post, and B2's back is to A1. As A1 drives past B2, A1 gives a little forearm to B2's back to creat a little more space. (Snaqs has more examples.)

Anyway, we agree the offense can commit a player-control foul against a defender who does not have LGP.

This leads us back to the question of the stationary defender with the foot on the line. My whole point is the case play tells us the defender does not have LGP, due to the foot being on the line. It does not say the defender has "illegal position", and it does not say the defender is responsible for all contact because they are OOB. There have been no specific rules citations to back up any of those comments. So, all other things being equal, my point (and a couple others here), say there can be a situation where A1 can be called for the player-control foul, even though B1's foot is on the line OOB.

Do you follow the logic?

[Camron Rust]

Here is a new twist to demonstrate the point...

For those that insist the foul is on the player who is OOB just because they are OOB, what is your call if they are both OOB?

Example: A1 loses the ball, an interrupted dribble, just before stepping on the line running into a stationary and OOB B1.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, all other things being equal, my point (and a couple others here), say there can be a situation where A1 can be called for the player-control foul, even though B1's foot is on the line OOB.

Do you follow the logic?

I do not disagree that there could be such a situation,
such as just bowling B1 over becuase he was there, pushing off with the arm, and several others that have probably been mentioned in this thread.

it is possible that you could call a PC foul here,