Everyone is entitled to a spot

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Triad zebra

B1 standing in the lane facing A's basket. Guarding no one. A1 grabs rebound at other end of court and goes full speed for,a layup and plows into back of B1. I have some very senior officials saying block on B1. Telling me that B1 did not have a LGP. I know this is a player control foul on A1. Can someone help me out with some fodder to convince these guys. I don't think LGP has anything to do with this play. Is 10-6-7 convincing enough?

While they are correct in that player B1 didn't have LGP, that doesn't make it a foul on B1. Lack of LGP only removes the right of B1 to be moving to maintain position, to jump, or to raise their arms (verticality). If they are not doing any of those things when their is torso to torso contact, they can't be guilty of a foul.

[Triad zebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While they are correct in that player B1 didn't have LGP, that doesn't make it a foul on B1. Lack of LGP only removes the right of B1 to be moving to maintain position, to jump, or to raise their arms (verticality). If they are not doing any of those things when their is torso to torso contact, they can't be guilty of a foul.

You say torso to torso. But if A1 displaces B1 regardless of where the contact is if a foul is going to be called it would be PC correct?

[That Guy]

his point is that if B1 has any limb extended, and contact is on that limb, there could be a blocking foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While they are correct in that player B1 didn't have LGP, that doesn't make it a foul on B1. Lack of LGP only removes the right of B1 to be moving to maintain position, to jump, or to raise their arms (verticality). If they are not doing any of those things when their is torso to torso contact, they can't be guilty of a foul.

By what I heard in camps this summer, there may be a move afoot at the NCAA-M's level to deem this a block by the defender.

Not advocating or rejecting, just saying what I heard more than once over the summer.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

By what I heard in camps this summer, there may be a move afoot at the NCAA-M's level to deem this a block by the defender.

Not advocating or rejecting, just saying what I heard more than once over the summer.

Wouldn't be the first time NCAA officials went outside the rules to call a block when the rules said it was a charge. (semi-circle)

Truthfully, this one (running into the back of a stationary opponent) is just not practical. You'd have offensive players looking for defenders looking the other way just to run into them.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Wouldn't be the first time NCAA officials went outside the rules to call a block when the rules said it was a charge. (semi-circle)

Truthfully, this one (running into the back of a stationary opponent) is just not practical. You'd have offensive players looking for defenders looking the other way just to run into them.

It's not the officials having this conversation, it's supervisors.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's not the officials having this conversation, it's supervisors.

The point remains the same regardless of who is discussing it. It doesn't have any rule support and it is problematic at best.

Why should a stationary player have to step out of a spot they legally obtained just to avoid a foul when an opponent chooses to run into them? There is no fundamental reason to make that a block. There is no problem that it is solving. It is merely someone trying to find (or create) a reason not to call a charge again.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point remains the same regardless of who is discussing it. It doesn't have any rule support and it is problematic at best.

Why should a stationary player have to step out of a spot they legally obtained just to avoid a foul when an opponent chooses to run into them? There is no fundamental reason to make that a block. There is no problem that it is solving. It is merely someone trying to find (or create) a reason not to call a charge again.

Am I supposed to answer that? What are you going to do if the NCAA-Men decide that's how they want the play adjudicated?