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.

The case/rule that you cite is and is about the definition of legal guarding position.

Can a player draw a PC foul without LGP? Yes, in some circumstances (stationary, not jumping, etc.....all things that require LGP in order to be legal at that time of contact)

The reason the case is a block is that the defender who was guarding the dribbler (implying they were actively playing defense....moving) lost LGP when they stepped OOB and they needed LGP in order to not commit a block. The definitions of block and charge make no reference being inbounds or OOB....but sometimes depend on LGP (but not always).

Right. LGP is defined by being inbounds (among other things).

Much of this, as I see it, depends on the contact created by the dribbler. In a general sense, this would be blocking, as you cannot have LGP if you're out of bounds. It has to be pretty nasty contact created by the dribbler to be a charge, though.

not a charge
 

By rule this can NEVER be a charge. B1 does not have LGP. See 2003-04 Interp.
Therefore the choices are Block, No call, or if deemed so, Intentional/Flagrant Foul on A1.

2003-04 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS
SITUATION 7: B1 obtains a legal guarding position on A1, who is dribbling the ball near the sideline. There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line, or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), a blocking foul shall be called on B1. B1 may not be touching out of bounds. In (b), a player-control foul shall be called on A1; B1 had established and maintained a legal guarding position. (4-23-2,3; 4-35-1)

While you are correct that B1 doesn't have LGP, B1 doesn't need LGP in some situations.

Many people misinterpret this interpretation to mean a defender can never benefit from a PC call while being OOB. This is simply not what this rule nor the case says. The rule it is references only defines LGP and only says that a player can not have LGP while OOB. That's it. Nothing more. If B1's actions require LGP (moving at the time of contact), then it is a block if the defender is OOB (no LGP).

In the interpretation, B1 is moving, staying in the path and, as such, needs LGP. Being OOB, B1 doesn't have LGP. With the combination of being OOB and needing LGP, it is a block. But it is not solely because B1 is OOB, it is also because B1 needs LGP and doesn't have it.

A stationary player, one not moving to maintain a position, doesn't need LGP to draw a charge. The offensive player in such a case has ample time to avoid such a player.