Block - Charge Out Of Bounds
 

This topic deserves a different thread, but I just saw your response and so out of laziness, I'm going to respond here :)

My understanding is that if a defender is out of bounds and contact occurs on the torso, it's a blocking foul. Of course, the defender is not responsible for intentional or flagrant contact initiated by his/her opponent. But in typical block/charge plays, the defender cannot "draw the charge" with a foot out of bounds.

Have I misunderstood the purpose/ramifications of this rule?

Yes, you have (although not everyone agrees with me)

The RULE says (and only says... actually it doesn't really say it but it has been interpreted to mean it) a defender doesn't have LGP if they have OOB status. Nowhere does it define it to be a blocking foul for being OOB.

The CASE declares the player who is OOB as having committed a block but the read-between-the-lines of the case play is that the player is actively guarding his opponent and steps OOB in the process of moving to maintain position. Thus, the player loses LGP by being OOP and is called for the block as a result of not having LGP.

It is intended to cover the situation where a defender shifts over to cut-off a baseline drive and puts their foot on the line. It isn't intended to apply to a player who was near OOB and happens to be on the line when a player comes along and runs into them.

On top of that, this was the other way for 100 years until someone on the rules committee decided to make an interpretation that flipped the way everyone had been calling it (and coaching it) forever.

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.

Hey, At Least I Still Have My Hair, How Many Of You Can Say That ???
 

True. When I coached middle school basketball, before the rule change, and taught trapping on the sidelines and endlines, I would teach my players to be sure to cut off the ball handler by keeping a sneaker on the line, to not even give them a chance of sneaking through the trap. That's the way I was coached in high school in the mid-twentieth century, back when my hair was brown, not gray, as it is today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

9-3-3

Can anyone provide a reference where we can read the actual facts as opposed to someone telling us to "read between the lines" and offering their opinion.

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

The rule book. It says a player can't have LGP while OOB. That is the fact.

[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.

No one is disputing that. It's all that other crap you're laying on us.

The rule being discussed is about the definition of LGP, not the definition of a blocking foul. The case play being referenced is about LGP, not about the definition of blocking fouls.

The only way you get that case to mean anything different than what I'm saying is if you take it out of context.

If you want to start doing that, you're going to have a lot of interesting results.

If they had wanted it to mean as you seem to suggest, they would have changed the definition of a blocking foul, not the definition of LGP.

Yep, that's what I thought. All opinion, no rule reference, case plays or interps to support your "read between the lines" opinion.

No. The rule reference IS the context. You might not understand it, but context is part of every rule and case.

I understand the rule perfectly.

What I don't understand is:

"It isn't intended to apply to a player who was near OOB and happens to be on the line when a player comes along and runs into them."

Where can I read a rule, case play or interpretation that supports this?

Does that player neat LGP? Yes or no? If the legality of what they are doing doesn't depend on LGP, then this rule doesn't apply.

This is what it boils down to, IMO. The rule says a player can't have LGP while a foot is OOB. Why is it being applied to players who don't require LGP?

Once again, you failed to answer the question.

"It isn't intended to apply to a player who was near OOB and happens to be on the line when a player comes along and runs into them."

Where can I read a rule, case play or interpretation that supports this?

You need to find a rule that says it is illegal.

The standard is that if it is not illegal, it is legal.

Nowhere in the rule book says it is a foul to be contacted while OOB. It only says you don't have LGP while OOB...and the case book, in the section covering GUARDING, says it is a block when contact occurs with a defender who is GUARDING (because it is in the section defining guarding) while OOB....and the reason is that they don't have LGP.

Now show me a case or rule that says a rule on guarding applies to non-guarding situations.

Pretty blanket statement that if you are guarding then no matter what it is a foul on the defender. Why SHOULD a non-defender get any special treatment, LGP or NOT?

The non-defender doesn't get special treatment. That is the point. They are more limited, in general. They can't be moving and they don't have versatility. But, if they are not doing any of those things, they don't need LGP. It is no different than a non-guarding player elsewhere on the court....such as a player with their back to the drive who is just standing there.

The purpose of that interpretation was to address the play where a defensive guard was sliding over to cut off a baseline drive by placing one foot OOB to cut off any chance of the drive getting by.

So you are giving players on the court and off the court the same rights?