Block in this case.

bail out
 

Thanks for all the replies. I am a little surprise that everyone would go with the block, I expected some differences.

Change it a little. A1 is trying to split B1/B2 and the space is no doubt in your mind that the initial spacing is too close to for A1 to do it without contact. (that space being less than 3 feet and relevant to the players size and ability)

Even if B1 moves closer in with a knee, aren’t we bailing A1 out for trying to go somewhere he "has the greater responsibility for contact" by calling a block?

Not arguing, just trying to flesh out the situation more. Many around here would view the block as rewarding A1 for initiating contact he shouldn’t have.

I did lump the case play in with the ruling, they are similar, but you are correct the case play does not have the language.

This is about judgement. Sticking a knee out in and of itself isn't illegal, and if it's not the knee that then causes A1 to fall/lose control/whatever happens, it's not a foul.

But, if it's a situation where it was unlikely A1 would make it through, but then B1 stuck a knee out to make sure she didn't and contact with that knee is what causes A1 the issue, it is, by definition, a block.

And if B1 sticks his knee out and you call a charge (or no-call), you're bailing B1 out for being stupid.

If B1 sticks his knee out and contact is on his chest, PC foul (or nothing). If, however, contact is with the extended knee, it's a blocking foul.

Don't worry about not bailing a player out of a jam; B1 bailed him out by sticking his knee out.

Why think of it as bailing someone out? Why would B1's illegal act miraculously become legal merely because B2 is standing 2 feet away?