Block - Charge Out Of Bounds

[Amesman]

So to be totally clear, if Poindexter has hustled into the forecourt after a made shot and is engrossed in his comic book while having a foot on the sideline and A1 dribbles into him, sending him, the educational reading and his bandaged glasses flying, this is indeed a PC foul? (He didn't have LGP, nor was he necessarily trying to.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Amesman

So to be totally clear, if Poindexter has hustled into the forecourt after a made shot and is engrossed in his comic book while having a foot on the sideline and A1 dribbles into him, sending him, the educational reading and his bandaged glasses flying, this is indeed a PC foul? (He didn't have LGP, nor was he necessarily trying to.)

It may or may not be a PC foul. You could certainly call nothing. But one thing it is not is a block.

Nothing he was doing required LGP to be legal...which is what the rule on the issue addresses.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It may or may not be a PC foul. You could certainly call nothing. But one thing it is not is a block.

Nothing he was doing required LGP to be legal...which is what the rule on the issue addresses.

Yes but in this case the onus of the contact NEEDS to fall on one or the other. So even though what he was doing didn't require LGP he still is the one that will be held responsible for the contact.

Now here is the fly in my ointment say the offensive player uses the ol stiff arm/shove here. I would be inclined to go with a PC foul here BUT being out of bounds and short of an intentional/flagrant act I would want to keep the foul call here consistent and go with a block. But I don't necessarily feel good or even completely agree with that and I am torn between both sides of the aisle on this one.

[Adam]

The rule clearly states the foot out of bounds means he does not have legal guarding position. Nowhere does it say it is an illegal position on the floor.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by adam

the rule clearly states the foot out of bounds means he does not have legal guarding position. Nowhere does it say it is an illegal position on the floor.

9-3-3

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9-3-3

If you're going to use this, you should have a violation before the contact even occurs.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Yes but in this case the onus of the contact NEEDS to fall on one or the other. So even though what he was doing didn't require LGP he still is the one that will be held responsible for the contact.

Now here is the fly in my ointment say the offensive player uses the ol stiff arm/shove here. I would be inclined to go with a PC foul here BUT being out of bounds and short of an intentional/flagrant act I would want to keep the foul call here consistent and go with a block. But I don't necessarily feel good or even completely agree with that and I am torn between both sides of the aisle on this one.

You'd still be inconsistent.

The player with a foot OOB is equivalent to the player in the lane with his/her back to the ball who is 100% stationary and has been in their spot for a while when an offensive player runs into their back. They're not guarding. They don't have LGP....but it is still PC foul. A stationary player is simply not responsible for other players not watching where they are going.

The situation with the player with a foot on the line, even one actively guarding and moving, could have been charge for 100 years until someone decided to make an "editorial" change to flip the rule. There was no reason to change the rule and the justification for calling it an "editorial change" was a joke.

That said, the only time I"m automatically calling a block is when the defender tries to cut-off a drive and stomps their foot OOB to seal off the baseline.....(making what should be considered a good defensive play). In fact, unless they step way OOB, i'm probably not going to see the location defenders foot anyway since nothing else I'm looking at on the play involves the defenders feet.

[deecee]

Camron, I don't disagree with you but in your example both feet are in bounds.

Plus I remember being told/taught in several camps that in no way can a player be called for a PC if the defender has a foot on the line or OOB and it should be a block.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Camron, I don't disagree with you but in your example both feet are in bounds.

Plus I remember being told/taught in several camps that in no way can a player be called for a PC if the defender has a foot on the line or OOB and it should be a block.

I'm sure you have (been taught that). A lot of people have been reading a lot more into that case play than is really there.

The rule behind the case play ONLY refers to LGP and that being OOB revokes a players ability to have LGP. In no way and in no location in any book has the definition of a block/charge been changed to say that a player OOB has automatically committed a foul in the event of contact.

The case play may seem to say that but it MUST be read in the context of the rule it is related to to understand it. It is talking ONLY about LGP and giving an example of a player having LGP while guarding an opponent and then losing it by stepping on the line. As a result, the call is a block. It was never intended to cover all players that may have been OOB, just those that were guarding and needed LGP to draw a charge.

[billyu2]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;859285]You'd still be inconsistent.

The player with a foot OOB is equivalent to the player in the lane with his/her back to the ball who is 100% stationary and has been in their spot for a while [/B]when an offensive player runs into their back. They're not guarding. They don't have LGP....but it is still PC foul. A stationary player is simply not responsible for other players not watching where they are going.

4-23-1 "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court"which I believe does not make the two equivalent. Certainly the player OOB would be protected from intentional or flagrant contact by an opponent; but a player control foul? Not in my opinion.