Block / Charge Situation
 

A1 receives a swing pass down at the baseline and begins his drive to the bucket. A1 plows into B1 knocking him to the floor at the lower part of the block on the fouline but prior to contact B1 has one foot out of bounds. What is your call and why?

Was B1 stationary? PC foul. B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB.

Was B1 moving? More difficult. By stepping OOB, B1 has given up his legal guarding status, but that doesn't mean A1 is entitled to barrel over him. If the contact is such that legal guarding status is required for a PC foul to be called, then it's not a PC foul.

OOB = Violation
 

Your sitch has the defender with one foot out of bounds. Your description suggests that this violation (9-3-3) was committed prior to the "crash."

Violation on the defender. Ignore the "crash."

Blocking foul.

In NFHS this is a block.

Text Book Situation 4.23.3, Situation B. Blocking Foul - Accept for not being on the sideline, it's almost verbatim.

Foot OOB = not LGP
 

Interesting point . . . jdw says, "B1 is entitled to his position on the floor regardless of whether he's touching OOB."

Point of order here: 4-23-1 says: "Every player is entitled to a spot ON THE PLAYING COURT . . ." 4-23-3a says that a legal guarding position consists of "inbound status."

Therefore, is it not correct that B1 is not entitled to his illegal guarding position because he is committing a violation by having a foot OOB?

Clarification
 

I revise my opinion based on the citation given by "grunewar". BLOCK.

I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong here - however, 4.23.3 deals with legal guarding position, and in the OP there certainly is no legal guarding position.

However, legal guarding position isn't required for all PC fouls. A player facing away from the dribbler doesn't have legal guarding position. But, if that player is stationary, A1 cannot displace him from his position on the court.

I'd contend that a stationary B1, even with a foot touching the end line, is still entitled to that spot. I'll also contend this is not a violation unless you deem B1 intentionally left the playing court.

JDW - you can "contend" all you want, the NFHS Caseplay and rule is "B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position."

Picture A1 dribbling and B1 attempting to "force" A1 out of bounds by maintaining his LGP and using the sideline/baseline. B1 may not intentionally leave the court, but, if he's on the line and there's a collision, Fed says you have a block.

I don't disagree that B1 forfeits his LGP. In fact, that's what I said in my first post on this topic.

But what if LGP isn't required?

Great Discussion!
 

I appreciate this particular discussion. Back in the early 70's our veteran high school coach taught us to always put a foot OB so that the dribbler couldn't possibly get around us on that side. "Take the charge!", he'd say.
When officiating in the 80's and early 90's, I acknowledged no problem with this and recall no rule against it.
When coaching in the late 90's and early 00's, I coached defenders the same way.
When resuming officiating in the mid-00's, I see that a rule change must have taken place. Either that or my high school coach was incorrect and I wasn't as up on the rules as I should have been.
Last year I polled a variety of varsity coaches on this "legal guarding position = in bounds" issue, and about 70% of them got it wrong.
Of course it takes a while for the rules to catch up with the coaches, doesn't it!

even if you go with the part about the defender is entitled to his position on the court, since the foot is OB there is no way that you can not call this a block.
the player has to be on the floor to be legal - not just to have legal gaurding position.

This is from the 04-05 interps from NFHS ( I believe this was the year they changed the rule)
SITUATION 13: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

Disagree. A defender who is OOB doesn't automatically become open for free hits just because they're OOB.

The rule that addresses this is ONLY about LGP. It declares that and OOB player can't have LGP. Thus, any contact that depends on LGP will automatically be a block if the defender is OOB. However, contact that doesn't depend on LGP is unaffected by this rule. All case plays and interpretations dealing with this situation are in the context of a player actively guarding their oppoenent...making LGP relevant.

Additionally, it deals only with block/charge. Any other type of foul (illegal use of hands, push, hold and hand check) against the offensive player are still possible even if the defender is actively guarding the dribbler.

EDIT: ran spell checker after seeing I had so many typos. :|

I agree with Camron. If B1 isn't moving, he doesn't need LGP. 4.23.3 deals specifically with a player moving and maintaining LGP. It doesn't apply to a stationary defender.

Why did B1 set up so close to the baseline that would cause him to be OOB?

The baselines and sidelines are your friend. You can easily establish your position so that you are not consider OOB thus losing your status of LGP.

Block!!

Freddy,
This change began back prior to the 2003-04 season when the NFHS tried to pass it off as an editorial change. We knew then that it was really a rule change and said so. Case plays and interpretations came out the following season. Here are a couple of our early discussions about this on this forum:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...-position.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...h-feet-ib.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...03-2004-a.html

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ne-sequel.html

The last one is my favorite. ;)

Block against a stationary defender?

Until the fed specifically says we should call this play a block, I've got PC.

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties
Section 6 Contact ART. 2 . . . A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact. If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent. If a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble.

That is the FED from last year I think but I am stuck on the term legally obtain a defensive position. you can not be legal if your foot is on the line. So unless the dribbler put his head down and go out his jousting lance and ran this defender over, the call has to be a block becuase the defender is not legal.
The NCAA wording is virtually identical.

LGP has to do with being able to get to a spot in the path of an offensive player, not a defender who happens to be in the path the offensive player wants to take. See the difference? In the OP, if the defender is facing the ball handler, then tries to step in front of the moving ball handler and gets to the spot first with both feet inbounds, it's a charge. If the defender contacts the ball handler before getting to the spot first, it's a block, because they didn't maintain LGP. If the defender gets to the spot first, but has one foot OOB, it's a block, also because there is no LGP.

But let's say the defender and ball handler are both standing there staring at each other, then the ball handler decides to run through the defender who is just standing there. Obvious charge. Turn the defender around so their back is to the ball handler, and they are just standing there; now the ball handler takes off and runs through the back of the defender. Another obvious charge, even though the defender does not have LGP, by definition. The defender is entitled to the spot on the floor, and they did not move into the path of the offensive player. This time the defender is standing with one foot OOB before the ball handler takes off - still a charge, again not because of LGP, but because they did not move into the path of the offensive player, and they're entitled to a spot on the floor.

If the defender is stationary, LGP is not required, I don't care how long he's been there. In that case the case play noted is not relevant. If the defender is moving laterally at contact, then he needs LGP, and better not have a foot OOB.
I will not call a block on a stationary defender unless the fed makes it very clear that's what they want; or my assigner does the same.

My point here is that all of the references for being legal - refer to the player being inbounds which he is not.

I am saying that unless the actions of the ball handler are seriously aggressive, unsporting or there is some obvious contact that would be a charge under any circumstances, I can not give the defender the benifit of the doubt it they are not legally on the floor. I am not talking legal guarding position, I am talking about not being legal period. infact in an other thread people have talked about violating him for having his fut on the line.

So l let's twist it this way - and see what you think.
Let's take the ball out of the situation. and make it a rub off screen where A2 is at the baseline with a foot on the baseline while A1 makes a rub off cut inbounds that looses the defender B1 due to contact with A2 is that a legal screen?

If

I don't care if a player has the ball or not; if he is stationary, he cannot be responsible for contact. If he's completely out of bounds, call the violation for leaving the court. If he's got a foot on the line, he can't have or keep LGP. If he doesn't need LGP, then it doesn't matter if his foot is on the line.

Be careful about confusing a player being OOB, with a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason; those are two different scenarios. Having a foot OOB is <b>not</B> leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Having a foot OOB can affect whether a player has LGP, and whether or not a screen is considered legal. However, there's still that annoying little phrase about a player being entitled to a spot on the floor. So, in your example, if A2 is set on the spot before B1 starts the move and runs into A2, responsibility for the contact still rests with B1.

The provision about a player being entitled to a spot on the floor is not absolute.

NFHS 4-23-1 Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

One common situation when being "there" first is does not entitle the player to that spot is when the player's chosen position is in the path of an already airborne player. I bring this up not because it has direct bearing on the OP, but because it illustrates that merely being first is not absolute.

So to ask the unpopular question: If the defensive player's foot is on the OOB line, even if he's been there since last Tuesday, did he really "get there first without illegally contacting an opponent."? :confused:

Yep. Until the Fed tells me otherwise in no uncertain terms.
If the player hasn't left the playing court, then it's a spot he's entitled to.

Did he contact the opponent, or did the opponent contact him?

Besides, if he was there since last Tuesday, wouldn't the janitor have taken care of the situation? :confused:

Let's change this. B2 standing with a foot on the line and the other foot comletely in bounds. A1 driving down the sideline, runs into B2, knocking him to the floor. Nothing flagrant or intentional, as he's focussed towards the basket; he just grazes the defender.

You gonna call a block on B2?

A/D. No foul.

Really, you have a previously stationary defender now laying on the floor due to contact initiated by the offense. No foul?

If he knocked him to the floor, there must of been a little more than a graze! If not and A1 has a layup let them go and shoot it, if not definitely a block "still", because of the foot being on the line and you can't be in legal guarding position whether they initiated contact or not!

A stationary defender does not need LGP, so not having LGP is not relevant to this play.

Who created the contact is not the only determining factor. If the defender is stationary, but has his arm sticking out in the dribbler's path, and the dribbler contacts the arm...

Well, I'm sure the janitor cleaned up after him, if you know what I mean. ;)

Player Location
 

My call: Block! Easy call w/ player standing out of bounds

For those tied up on the fact that a player is entitled to their spot on the floor:
Location of player: The location of a player is determined by where they are touching the floor, as far as being in bounds or out of bounds.

If a player is touching the floor out of bounds, they are not on the playing floor? Therefore the player is not entitled to that spot on the floor b/c they are considered out of bounds. A player cannot be out of bounds and take a charge.

If you can't call him for a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason, he's still on the playing floor.

If he's not on the playing floor, you need to call the violation as soon as he leaves. This is not a block.

I would go with that before a player control. I'm still calling a block though:)

also, why would this be different than a player who has established LGP (not relevent in the OP) and going OOB to maintain it and getting called for a block. Why not call the violation for leaving the floor first? (Situation 7 from 03-04 rule interps) I believe the intent is the same, that a player must be on the floor (playing court) in order to draw a PC foul.

Ummm, no. But he has left the playing floor for an authorized reason. Thus no violation.

Edited to add: From the interps: A player's momentum, after performing legal actions on the court, resulting in taking him/her out of bounds is not a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason.

My point is that a player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

A spot on the playing court if the player has a foot on the line s/he is NOT on the Playing court!

SECTION 13 COURT AREAS
ART. 1 . . . The frontcourt of a team consists of that part of the court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of the backboard.
ART. 2 . . . The backcourt of a team consists of the rest of the court, including the entire division line and the opponent's basket and inbounds part of the opponent's backboard.

A player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

So a player w/ the ball touching the line is NOT out of bounds? That is what you are saying with that statement. If a player is touching out of bounds, they are, by definition, out of bounds. What is hard to understand about that?

Not to speak for Snaqs, but there's nothing hard to understand about that.

Where there is disagreement is whether having OOB status prohibits a stationary player from having any legal protection from being charged over. I'm with those who say that's not true. That player may not have legal guarding position, but he doesn't need it because he's stationary.

I understand he is stationary, but he is OOB! The rules state you have to be on the playing court. Like I said in the initial reply to snaqs, if you want to call the violation for being OOB illegally, I can see that, but this is not a player control b/c the player is not legally on the playing surface to take the foul.

I agree that if it is a flagrant act, or an obvious attempt to just bowl the defense over b/c he is OOB, absolutely call the offensive foul. But by the defense not being on the playing court, b/c they have a foot OOB, they are not entitled to draw a PC foul.

No, he's not
 

This is the reason the Fed came out with this interp a fews year back. If an offensive player (with or without the ball) can not go out of bounds, then we can not allow a defensive player to be out of bounds. If you allow this, then you are giving an advantage to the defense. They both have to play within the confines of the playing court. The defense is not entitled to any spot on the "floor" but on the playing court, which does not include the lines.

Let's change it up a bit, then. A1 is getting ready to make a cut by the sideline - when he does, his heel is on the line. At the same time, B1 holds him, preventing him from making his cut.

What's your call here? I've got B1 with a holding foul.

To me, it's no different - other than we've got a common foul instead of a PC foul.

Remove the ball from the original play - A1 is cutting to the basket, and B1 is stationary on the baseline with the foot on the line. A1 contacts B1 firmly in the torso, sending B1 sprawling. What do you have?

As far as I can tell, out of bounds and leaving the floor equate exactly. OHBBREF has posted the closest defs we have. Note also the verbiage in this case play:

9.3.3 SITUATION B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained by the double screen. RULING: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.

In other words, as soon as A3 is OOB, which is very clearly defined, he has left the playing floor. However, merely leaving the playing floor is not a violation.

Also, iirc, the stated intent for this rule, from the NFHS's comments on the new rules the year it was enacted (or perhaps from the prior year, NevadaRef is right about the piecemeal way this was done), had to do specifically with the inequity of allowing the defense to use the OOB area to play defense, and the need to require all players to play the game on the playing floor. Ergo their interpretation that the defenders foot on the line ends LGP.

I have a big problem with calling a violation for leaving the floor in this situation, because though he is no longer on the playing floor, he has not left for an unauthorized reason.

Violation
 

If the violation occurred first, then you call it and ignore the foul. If the foul occurred first then call it and ignore the violation.

No offense intended guys, but I can't believe we are arguing this since there is a spot-on case play that addresses this issue exactly. Look, guys I don't like it anymore than many of you. I even argued many of the points being made here with our VP of training when this interp first came out years ago. However, I'm not given the option to enforce only the rules I like or to interp a rule in direct opposition to the Fed. I don't make the rules. I only enforce them. And the Fed absolutely wants this to be called a block. I respect your opinions, but based on the case play, I have to disagree with you. This is a block.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that call either! I've stated a couple of times that this is absolutely a BLOCK by rule. All I was saying is that I can see calling the violation for being OOB. What was the "authorized" reason the player left the floor?

As much as I'm enjoying this, I'm typing with a splint on my left ring finger and I can't do this as much as I'd like. I've got to bow out for now.

I don't know how you make this distinction. Either defense is fair game or he's not.

Would you call a violation on a player going around a screen if his foot ever-so-slightly touches the line?
My contention is that he has not left the playing court.

Guys this is not a violation
 

Rule 9-3-3 does not cover this. Intent is required. Every case play regarding this rule has the word intent except for 9.3.3.A, and even that one it is obvious that intent was there. So if you have a violation every time a player goes out of bounds then what do you have on this play? B1 steals the ball from A1 but in so doing loses his balance. Before stepping out of bounds he bats the ball ahead to B2 who has an unobstructed lane to the basket. Before B2 releases the ball on a shot, B1 steps out of bounds.

If your position is that stepping out of bounds is a violation, then you have to kill this play and award the ball to team A. Let's be consistent guys.

This is not a violation. Neither is the defender stepping out of bounds in the OP. We can't invent an interpretation of this rule to give us an out on calling the block. It's a block.

Ok, how do you distinguish between a common foul and an intentional foul? Same idea. If the offense sees the defense is standing OOB and decides to bowl the defense over b/c they are OOB, then I've got the call against the offense.

How do you argue that the player is legally entitled to a "spot on the playing floor" when by rule, the player is not on the playing floor if he is standing OOB?

I'm not arguing that it should be called a violation? I was just asking where you see he was OOB for an authorized reason. You answered. THanks.

And to answer the play in your example, the player left b/c he lost his balance, that is the same as his momentum taking him OOB. He did not intentionally leave the floor. I don't think the player in the OP intentionally left the floor either, in which case I've got a BLOCK. Very easy call IMO that should not have generated 4 pages of debate.

Nobody is inventing a reason to give us an out on calling a block. What those of us arguing against the block are saying is that a defender stepping on a line does not give the offensive player the right the displace that stationary defender.

From your interpretation, a stationary defender who is touching the line has given up his right to be there. Therefore an offensive player may initiate any amount of contact in any area of the body, displacing the defender, and always draw the blocking foul.

Absolutely....in fact, he got there without contacting an opponent at all. This statement in the rule says nothing about what happens after getting to the spot, only about getting to the spot....i.e., you can't push someone out of the way to get to a spot.

Because it is not an unauthorized reason to be playing defense and inadvertently step on/over the line.

Absolutely agree. I was just asking the question. ;)

The case play is spot-on
 

The case play says it all. This is a block. This is exactly what the Fed wants us to call. I don't like anymore than you. Belive me, I don't. But we have to call it the way the Fed wants. Do you not agree that the case play is exactly the same scenario as the OP? If so, then you have to agree this is a block. If you are going to allow the defense to be out of bounds on this play, then you have to allow the offense to step on the line to avoid contacting a defender who is near the line but not on it. We can't give the defense an advantage the offense doesn't get. We can't give them more space on the floor than the offense.

Okay lets come back to earth.
 

I think we are stretching

almost everyone here agrees that you can not just bowl over the defender no matter where he is, it the contact by the ball handler is excessive the foul would be PC, and infact you could go to another extreeme and say intentional.
that is not the intent of the OP,
What we are referring to here is -a player going to the basket in the course of a normal drive who contacts a defender who has his foot on the line, there is enough contact that it can not be deemed incidental and requires a whistle.
So other than a blarge what have you got?

No, the case play is not exactly the same. The case play specifically refers to LGP; which is completely irrelevant to a stationary defender.

Again. The case play has NOTHING to do with a stationary defender. It is all about LGP. And by definition, to have LGP, a defender must be inbounds.

We're discussing a stationary defender, so the case play is completely and entirely irrelevant.

I don't see how, with your approach, you can do anything but an intentional or flagrant on the offense. PC doesn't seem to be an option.

Yep...if a person is arguing that stepping on the line makes that player's position "illegal," then a PC foul could never be called. Either a PC foul is an option or it's not.

If it is, then all the "normal" rules should apply, and that includes that an offensive player cannot displace a defensive player.

The case play is relevant
 

No where in the case play does it say the defender was moving at the point of contact. You are inferring movement.

If you are sure the player left the court <B>on purpose and with specific intent</B>, then yes, it's a violation. The examples given on this violation are pretty clear - running around a screen OOB, or stepping out of the lane OOB to avoid a 3-second call, all seem to show clear intent to be OOB. I also know the Fed. has made it clear that momentum carrying a player OOB is acceptable. So if the defender was simply trying to get in front of the offensive player and their momentum caused them to go OOB, then there is no violation. So, unless you can show me the defender stepped OOB <B>on purpose and with specific intent</B>, then I've got to assume their momentum carried them to that spot, which eliminates that particular violation from this discussion.

Which brings us to the case play mentioned, 4.23.3B - this play has to do with LGP specifically. Notice the play says the defender obtains LGP, but is called for the blocking foul because they did not maintain LGP at the time of the contact, not because the defender violated by being OOB. That tells me the only issue involved in this discussion is LGP.

So, can an offensive player be called for a charge against a defensive player that does not have LGP? Sure. Can a stationary defensive player, without LGP, be called for a block, when the offensive player initiates contact? I would like to see the rules backing for that one.

No, I'm not. The case play is specifically about legal guarding position and says the block is called because the defender has not maintained LGP. No inferences needed, and nobody is going to disagree here.

But the scenario we're discussing does not require LGP, so you can toss that case play.

Thanks, M&M. I can't type enough to say all that right now. Those are exactly my thoughts on this play.

In the case play, B1 has obtained LGP, which means they must be completely inbounds. Then B1 "stays in the path of A1, but has one foot touching the sideline". How did B1 get from LGP to "one foot on the sideline", without movement?

I'm confused by your post. Did you just answer yourself?

And, I disagree with your conclusion. If the defender needed LGP, then it's a block. If LGP was not a factor (as in your examples with an extended arm or a stationary defender, etc) then if the player is at his spot before the offensive player, it's a PC foul.

No problem.

How did your finger get injured? Were you trying to flip off your CO?

I'm not tossing the case play
 

The case play is relevant. What will you call if B1 gets to the spot a split second before A1, but B1 is out of bounds? What if the displacement isn't violent, but A1 contacts B1 in the torso. I've got a block, because the defender is not entitled to that spot on the floor. He doesn't have LGP, just like in the case play.

I'm enjoying this debate, by the way! Its one of the best I've seen in a while!

That's just it. LGP isn't relevant if he's stationary. If he's moving, and LGP is an issue, then it's a block.

Absolutely agree this has been a fun one!

Yours is a HTBT play. If it's the type of play with some movement and the defender needed LGP, then it's a block or nothing.

If he was clearly there and stationary (and therefore no longer needed LGP) before the offensive player contacted him in the torso, then it's either a PC foul or nothing.

Well, we will just have to disagree
 

I've got a block. You and I disagree on the relevance of the case play. The one thing that I think is clear, is that the Fed's handed us a mess with this interp. I don't like it, but I can see their logic. When this first came out I argued for the option to give a flagrant technical if I deemed the contact severe enough. However, on normal contact, I'm calling the block because that's what I believe the Feds want. Again, this is all based on the case play.

Yep, we definitely disagree about the relevance of the case play. I guess I'd just challenge whether you want to apply a case that is explicitly about legal guarding position and how it is maintained to a situation that doesn't - in any way shape or form - require legal guarding position.

Just something to think about!

Just curious since I don't have my books here.
What does rule 4-23 define?

Let me give you one of those "third world" plays, and tell me how you would handle it.

B just scores right near the end of the game to go up by 1, with a few seconds left. A2 receives the inbounds pass after the basket, and sees B1 standing by sideline getting last-second instructions from the coach. A2 takes a couple of dribbles towards B1, who happens to have one foot on the sideline, facing the coach. A2, without any other pressure, bumps into B1 and goes down. So, B1 does not have LGP, by rule (not facing the opponent, in bounds, both feet on the ground, etc.). B1 is stationary.

Is your call a block on B1?

Guarding.

True
 

You make a good point, but I believe you are going against the very philosophy that prompted the Fed to go with this interp. You are giving the defense an advantage. You are allowing them to be out of bounds when you won't give the same right to the offense. In fact I believe the case play is right on point because it is that exact play and advantage the Fed wants to deal with. They don't want coaches to teach their players to plant one foot out of bounds on the base line to deny the player access to the basket. That's what was taught by coaches for years. And they taught the defender to remain still. There's your stationary defender and it is this exact play the Fed is addressing. I believe they are envisioning a stationary defender becasue that's how the coaches taught it and that'st they play they are addressing.

No, its T time baby!
 

The player was trying to draw a foul! He flopped. So you either give him a T or ignore it. However, this play doesn't have the same elements. This scenario is nothing like the OP or the Case Play.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. What if the defender was lost, facing the opposite direction, and didn't even know the player with the ball was there? He is completely stationary, has the edge of his foot on the line, and the offensive player basically runs him over?

I'll also say that if the Fed wanted us to address a stationary defender with a foot on the line, they could have written a case play addressing exactly that. Instead they wrote one specifically addressing LGP, which again, has no application here.

They did. It's 4.23.3.B and LGP does apply. But I bet you knew I was going to say that. :)

Hold on a second! :D

I want to make sure I'm following - I was under the impression that you felt a LGP case should apply to a non-LGP situation because there wasn't a specific non-LGP case. But from your quote above, it appears that you're saying that LGP applies to all these situations? Is that right?

Both rules sets you have to call this a block. This is a LGP play and the defender did not establish LGP. Movement has nothing to do with it. If they are touching oob they are not on the playing floor. I don't like this rule, but that is the way we have to call it.

Since when is a stationary defender a LGP play?

I don't know about "all these situations"
 

In the OP and the case play, LGP applies. The other cases that have been mentioned alter the scenario enough for other rules to take effect. A player who is on the playing court with his back to A1, is not defending A1. They are entitled to their spot on the floor and can not be displaced. These facts don't apply to the OP. The player was defending A1 and as such has to be in LGP. The player was out of bonds. The other scenario involved a player attempting to get a foul called by flopping. Again this is a different scenario.
You can't give the defense the right to stand out of bounds and allow them to play defense. A stationary player with LGP is protected but a stationary player can still be called for a foul. B1 is stationary and is facing A1. B1's legs are more than shoulder width apart. A1 goes around B1, but trips over B1's foot. What do you have?

Your rule is the rule you are using saying the player is entitled to a spot on the playing floor. By having a foot OOB, the player is not on the Playing floor. That is made clear by the rule establishing Player Location. If a player is not legally in a spot to take an offensive foul, then the player who is OOB is responsible for the contact.

FWIW, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A VIOLATION ON THE DEFENSE. IT IS A BLOCK!!!!

I am going to respectfully disagree with those of you who say that the play in the OP is a player control foul. And having time to think about it a little, I don't think you have an option to call a player control in this situation. If the offense bowls over the defense w/ intent, then I have an intentional foul. For those that ask how I make that distinction, if you have ever called an intentional, or flagrant, you know it when you see it. You and I may have a different standard as to when we call it, but you know it when you see it.

This is one place we (somewhat) disagree. In the case play, LGP definitely applies because that's what the case play is all about. In the OP, LGP only applies if the defender is moving. If the defender is stationary, then a lot of things apply but LGP isn't one of them.

This we agree on 100%.

This we disagree on.

This is simply a false statement.

Other factors we've been talking about (like displacement for example) always apply. LGP simply gives a defender additional rights to move and maintain a position that forces the offensive player to be responsible for contact. But there is no requirement that for a PC foul to be called that a defender facing an opponent has to have LGP.

This is debatable. You can't allow a defender to intentionally leave the playing for to gain an advantage. That's a violation. Also, by definition, a player cannot obtain or maintain LGP while OOB. But I have yet to see anything that says a player can't defend while standing on a line.

Of course a player with LGP can commit a foul. All rules of illegal contact still apply to a player with LGP - LGP just helps define who is responsible for contact.

rule 10 section 1 Art 8 NCAA best describes this
A dribbler shall neither charge into not contact an opponent in the dribblers path not attampt to dribble inbetween two oppnents or between an opponent and a boundry, unless the space is sufficent to provide a reasonable chance for the dribbler to pass through with out contact.

and to conclude the other part of the argument
art 10
when a dribbler has obtained a straight line path, the dribbler may not be crowded out of that path; when an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path the dribbler shall avoid contact by changing direction or ending the dribble.
So the defender in the original OP is legal until that foot goes out OB

Your Honor, move to strike - defendent is submitting facts not already in evidence... ;) I did not say anywhere that there was a flop; in fact, my point is the dribbler saw the defender standing on the line, and purposely ran into the defender, causing enough contact to knock himself over. Iow, the dribbler initiated contact. Why is it still a block?

Let me change the play slightly - A2 is being guarded and being forced on a path toward B1, who is looking at the coach and has one foot on the sideline. A2 sticks out their forearm and knocks B1 out of the way so they can get by. No severe contact, just a simple push off by the dribbler. Are you saying this can <B>never</B> be a player-control foul, because B1 has a foot on the line?

Maybe we've lost track about the discussion. In the OP, I believe we are all assuming the defender is trying to obtain or maintain LGP by stepping into the path of the offense, and at the moment of contact, the defender's foot is on the line - therefore, we all agree it's a block, as per 4.23.3 Sit B. No problem there. I think we also agree that any player is entitled to their spot on the floor, whether or not there is LGP established, if an offensive player initiates contact, correct? Where we disagree is whether the defender's foot being OOB automatically makes them responsible for the contact, even if the defender is stationary. My contention is that the case play states directly the reason for the block is because of "forfeiture" of LGP by being OOB. It does not say the defender has "illegal status" by being OOB. In fact, this is supported by the fact it is part of the "Guarding" section of the rules. So, simply being OOB does not mean that player has forfeited their right to draw a player-control foul. It only means they have forfeited their LGP. That's the difference.

Move to strike denied. You opened the door, councilor. Opposing council is allowed this line of questioning/reasoning. The fact of the matter, your honor, is that the player tried to draw a foul. That is a T'able offense. I've never called it myself, but I've certainly ignored.

Here are the simple facts. The defense is allowed certain movements when defending. One of them however is not standing out of bounds. The case play is clear on that. No where in the case play does it say that the defender is called for a block because he was moving. No where does it say that he was moving. It simply says that the defender was not in LGP because he was out of bounds which is why he was called for a block.

Defense rests!

Man this is fun!

So LGP only applies if the player is moving? Not true. The rule book does not say that. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs. Is a stationary player in LGP if they are standing still and have their arm extended in front of the player moving with the ball? No. Every player has a right to a spot on the "playing floor", but they don't have the right to make it as wide as they want. They are only entitled to their shoulder width. How can you say that LGP doesn't apply to a stationary player? To maintain LGP the "guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, <b> PROVIDED HE/SHE HAS INBOUND STATUS</b>. So a player that is standing still but with one foot out of bounds does not have LGP.

Standing and moving are mutually exclusive states.
Yes it does (say he was moving). How can the defender "stay in the path of A1" without moving?

Exactly...and the reason LGP was relevant to begin with was because the defender was doing something (moving) that, to be legal, requires LGP in the event of contact.

LGP only grants a player the right to move/jump at the time of contact and not be guilty of a foul.
Legal position and Legal Guarding Position are not synonymous. LGP is only relevant in the context of contact with the defender's body,(block/charge) not their arms. What you're describing is illegal use of hands, not blocking.

Yes, the player has LGP, but has committed an illegal use of hands foul....which is not dependant on LGP.

Again, you're mixing blocking and illegal use of hands. Is it a foul, yes, but not a block and not because of the lack of LGP.

Read the definition of what a player who has LGP can do (4-23-3)

After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. ...may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne...inbounds
b. ....not required to continue facing...
c. ...may move laterally or obliquely...
d. ...may raise hands or jump....
e. ...may turn or duck...

Note that ALL of these are movement actions. Having LGP merely allows these actions...that is it.

If the player is stationary (not moving) then they are not doing a (foot in the air moving to a new spot), b (turning away), c (shifting), d (jumping), or e (turn/duck). So, they are not doing anything that required LGP to be legal.

Correct...but a stationary player is not judged using LGP. LGP is only needed to make actions I listed above legal in the event of contact.

No it doesn't say the defender was moving. Here's an example, A1 moves to get around B1. B1 moves obliquely to stay in his path and then STOPS! But his foot is on the line. He no longer has LGP but moved (past tense) to stay in his path. I can make one movement to stay in your path and then stop moving. The ruling in the case play was that the player did not have LGP because he was on the line. Don't you think if they wanted us to call a block because he was moving they would have said so? Besides, one can move and still have LGP. As long as it is not into the player. If movement was the issue the case play would have made it clear that the defender was moving into the player with the ball. That's not why the case play calls for a block. Its because he was on the line. That's why he didn't have LGP. Not because of movement. Its clear the the Case Play is calling a block because the player doesn't have LGP. LGP was lost because he was on the line, not because he was moving.

Not all are movement actions
 

4-23-3-a does not require movement. They are in violation of LGP because their foot is on the line. A stationary player is judged using LGP in this case based on the fact that the case play says that the player was called for a block. Why? Because they did not have LGP. Why did they not LGP? Because they were on the line not because they were moving.

rwest - a simple question: can a defender not have LGP, and an offensive player be called for a player-control foul on contact?