Owning the sideline?
 

I was evaluating intramural referees at UNH last weekend and saw a particularly interesting call from one of our better officials who also happens to be a freshman that got his start long before college. He called a block that I immediately thought was a charge because the defensive player had given the dribbler 3 steps and enough time to change his course. After the game I brought up the play with the ref and he said that because the dribbler had established his path along the sideline's edge that he "owned" that sideline and the defense must give up their position to the runner on the sideline...

Was he blowing smoke or is this something that I've been missing? If it is a legitimate call then does it also apply to the baseline?

Thanks for your input.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

pls refer him to Rule 4 Section 7 to disabuse him of this erroneous notion...
SECTION 7 BLOCKING, CHARGING
ART. 1 . . . Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of
an opponent with or without the ball.
ART. 2 . . . Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving
into an opponent’s torso.
a. A player who is moving with the ball is required to stop or change direction
to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained a legal guarding position
in his/her path.
b. If a guard has obtained a legal guarding position, the player with the ball
must get his/her head and shoulders past the torso of the defensive player.
If contact occurs on the torso of the defensive player, the dribbler is
responsible for the contact.
c. There must be reasonable space between two defensive players or a
defensive player and a boundary line to allow the dribbler to continue in
his/her path. If there is less than 3 feet of space, the dribbler has the greater
responsibility for the contact.
d. The player with the ball may not push the torso of the guard to gain a

When playing defense against the ball carrier, time and distance are not a requirement. All that is required is obtaining Legal Guarding Position, and then maintaining that legal guarding position. If you need to, look up the definitions of LGP in rule 4.

Tell him he's wrong, and ask him where in the he!! he heard that crap.

Next time he says someone owns the sideline because of their position, ask him if they showed him a deed, title, or proof of ownership. :confused: His explanation is so full of smoke, I'd vomit if he told me directly. :rolleyes:

It's obvious the explanation the young man gave was incorrect as no one is entitled to the sideline. It is however possible he got the block call right if the defensive player lacked Legal Guarding Position (i.e. defender's foot was Out Of Bounds when the contact occurred).

I still have a hard time with the idea of calling a blocking foul on a stationary player just because his foot was touching the line. LGP is not required for a stationary player, and in the OP, it's clear the defender was stationary.

He probably got the idea from 10-6-9:

"When 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."

He just didn't read the complete sentence.;)

I don't see any language that says LGP doesn't have to be established if the defender is stationary.

Am I missing it?

The part that says a player is entitled to their spot on the court.
Think about it, if the player is standing with her back to the dribbler, minding her own business, when the dribbler runs by and clips her knocking both players to the floor, who are you going to call the foul on? There's no LGP (defender never faced the opponent.)

That defender is not "guarding" as the defender is in the OP.

So if we're talking about a defender is by definition "guarding" doesn't LGP have to be established? If so, does the defender have LGP is he/she has a foot out of bounds?

What makes the difference? What if B1 got to her spot, in time, on purpose. Does that make a difference? What is it about the player in the OP that tells you they were "guarding." The fact that they were in the way?

No.

Please explain. If there is a block/charge situation isn't the call based on LGP?

Only if the defender is moving laterally or vertically. See my added response above the "no."

A player is always entitled to their spot on the floor; provided they got there legally.

LGP does grants the right to be moving on contact without being responsible for that contact.

LGP to me is an overrated term. It is a good example of a little knowledge may be worse than no knowledge at all. A guy sits in the stands for years yelling, "That's a blocking foul! He wasn't set!" Then, he sits next to Padgett at a game one night, and is given a lollipop and a complimentary rule book along with an explanation of Legal Guarding Position. Then, the very next night, B1 is beaten off the dribble by A1, who has a clear path to the basket. As B1 sprints to catch up, A1 sees him out of the corner of his eye and clears out with his inside arm as he goes up for the shot. The guy is outraged and confused. "What? He never had Legal Guarding Position? Where's that Padgett guy?"

Padgett is on the court, reporting the foul, after waving off the basket, which would have sent the game into overtime.

Whic of course had nothing to do with LGP. :D

I know that, and you know that.........but apparently Padgett gave that guy a less than perfect explanation.

Reading through this thread, the one thing that popped into my head was: Sometimes, you just have to referee.

Padgett couldn't have said it better.

That describes a long list of things.

Whew....thanks, I was getting lost.

Call toll free number before digging.
 

Isn't that what Michael Phelps said?

Not sure, apparently there isn't enough evidence.

Do not remove this disclaimer under penalty of law.
 

FYI: NFHS 4-7-c: There must be reasonable space between two defensive players or a defensive player and a boundary line to allow the dribbler to continue in his/her path. If there is less than 3 feet of space, the dribbler has the greater responsibility for the contact.

Return to sender.
 

Apparently a photo, several eye witnesses, and an apology from Phelps isn't enough evidence in some jurisdictions.

My guess, there's not enough evidence of a serious crime. At best, he'd get a misdimeanor, I think (not sure about SC law). I'm guessing the DA slapped the sheriff upside the head and told him not to pursue this; thus saving SC tax payers quite a bit of money.

Good guess. Since the photo showed him with his mouth on the bong, I kept waiting to hear "he didn't inhale." ;)

Or if Bill mixed up his excuses........

I did not have sex with that bong.