Stationary defender, with a wide leg stance
 

B1 is stationary with legs spread far apart. A1 intentionally charges into B1 and makes contact with B1's lower body, and not torso. B1 was stationary the whole time and it was A1 who intentionally initiated the contact.

Block, charge, or no call?

Sounds like a block if I'm reading your scenario correctly...

4-23 Guarding

ART. 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.

Depends on how long he was there in relation to the approaching player. If B1 is standing on the sideline doing stretching exercises and A1 comes along and trips over his outstretched leg, I have a no call.

Sounds like a block to me. No matter how long a person has a limb extended, they don't have a right to restrict space with it. A person only has the right to a spot vertically within their frame.

I've wondered about a slightly similar scenario. Defender B1 is standing with feet shoulder width apart in the forecourt for a long time as the ball's being brought up the floor after a made basket. A1 eventually plows squarely into him and either B1 or both go to the floor. What's your call -- if B1 had a foot on the sideline?

Sounds like a offensive foul & a block, respectively.

Intentional?
 

If you say A1 intentionally charges into B1 (and intentionally initiated the contact) why wouldn't you call an intentional foul on A1? Should B1's position (legal or not) even be the issue?

I have a real hard time imagining this as an intentional foul...

choice of words
 

Well, if someone says it was "intentional" I'm not sure how else to interpret that other than what he said it was. Maybe A1 "illegally contacts" B1 would have been better. But if he really did mean "intentional" how would you rule that? Block on B1 or intentional foul on A1?

I highly doubt he meant the rule book definition of an intentional foul...just because someone does something (fouls) intentionally doesn't automatically make it an intentional foul.

APG, I see what you mean. I re-read Miami's OP and saw that I missed that "the contact was on the lower body." I saw the word "torso" and assumed that's where the contact occurred. So, let's say the contact WAS on the torso of B1 (intentional or just illegal). Would you still have a block on B1 for having his feet too wide or a foul on A1?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, because the defender didn't extend his legs into the path of the defender.

Yep, I agree.

Charge or nothing.

Having a foot on the sideline negates LGP and everything that LGP allows....the rule regarding having the feet inbounds is part of the definition of LGP. It doesn't make it open season on the player who doesn't have LGP.

I wouldn't define the contact Amesman describes as "open season." The rule (particularly case 4.23.3 B) only calls for a block here. If the dribbler is targeting the defender, however, that could change things.

Conversely, on Miami's play, I'm going with charge. The point about no LGP is well taken, but I say "intentional" overrules it (though not with an intentional foul). I've said before that if you push a defender with an outstretched limb, I don't care whether the defender has LGP, that's advantageous contact, hence a foul. I say Miami's play falls into this realm.