Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The offensive player had no chance to catch that ball, which he is entitled to provided he doesn't push another player to do so, and avoid contact.

On the other hand, the defender had more than enough opportunity to set himself up in a way to avoid a collision.

I know the rule book doesn't use fairness, but if I can interpret a rule in a such a way to make things fair... I will.

PS... this is why I said what I did about the rule book being set-up to favor the defense. Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact. That is, unless you say he shouldn't be allowed to catch that ball in the first place.

I said this in another thread, it's one thing to disagree about judgment, quite another to tell veterans their interpretation of a rule is wrong.

And this is coming from one of the very few posters (maybe the only) who agreed with it being a block. But that is based on what I perceived as forward movement by the defender, not a non-existent interpretation of a rule.

Your career will hit a dam if you continue swimming up stream.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I said this in another thread, it's one thing to disagree about judgment, quite another to tell veterans their interpretation of a rule is wrong.

And this is coming from one of the very few posters (maybe the only) who agreed with it being a block. But that is based on what I perceived as forward movement by the defender, not a non-existent interpretation of a rule.

Your career will hit a dam if you continue swimming up stream.

I'm surprised anyone's trying. I gave up at "If I can interpret ..." something to fit his own sense of fairness, he's going to do so. Nevermind that we have Rules Interpretors whose jobs it is to do this interpreting for us and tell us how the entity we work for wants us to officiate. Interpretation is apparently something left to his own whim to allow him to enforce his own personal sense of justice, and to fight the good fight against the obvious bias of the rules in favor of the defense...

He has no interest in learning what the RIGHT answer is if he can justify in his own mind continuing with the wrong answer. We've all worked with that guy in the past. It's always a freaking mess. Sometimes these guys can be caught as rookies and fixed. But by his own words, his career path is just fine thankyouverymuch... Trying to fix it is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm surprised anyone's trying.

Trying to fix it is a waste of time.

I'm fine with what he is doing. Some people (myself included) prefer to not just accept the status quo right away, and take longer to grasp why certain rules are the way they are.

BryanV21 has shown a willingness to learn and change his viewpoint in other threads (as well as this one) so I will give him some rope.

[ballgame99]

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

Screening rules apply.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

You have missed the crux of the discussion. 2 different scenarios with 2 different outcomes.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

What's the key difference between LGP rules and screening rules? There's the answer to why this really matters in this case.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

NFHS Screen Rules 4-40-5 and 7 would apply. And the officials' judgement of whether the screener is "outside the visual field" of the moving player would affect the call/no-call.

[ballgame99]

I'm really not trying to argue, just want to make sure I understand. How would screening rules apply? Why would a defensive player be screening an offensive player on an out of bounds play?

If a defensive player is standing in a spot on a floor, under what circumstances would it be OK for an offensive player, with the ball or without, to run them over?

Again, please don't take my question as being argumentative, I just want to make sure I understand what is at play here.

[walt]

If B1 establishes position within A1's field of vision, B1 has to stop short of contact and give A1 a chance to stop or avoid him same as if one of A1's teammates is setting a screen within B's field of vision. If B1 is outside of A1's field of vision, he has to give A1 a minimum of space just like a screen being set outside of field of vision.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I'm really not trying to argue, just want to make sure I understand. How would screening rules apply? Why would a defensive player be screening an offensive player on an out of bounds play?

If a defensive player is standing in a spot on a floor, under what circumstances would it be OK for an offensive player, with the ball or without, to run them over?

Again, please don't take my question as being argumentative, I just want to make sure I understand what is at play here.

Screening has a rulebook definition beyond the usual notion of the offensive player "setting a screen."