Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Should we be ruling 9-3 on a screen set out of bounds, that with no contact, slows down and disadvantages the screened defender?
|
My point is simply this. For many years, we've known that in a guarding situation, a defender must have both feet on the playing court, and if he doesn't, and if there is any contact, no matter how "legal" everything else is, the defender is always called for a blocking foul.
4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.
Many of us never thought to extrapolate that to say that a defender in such a situation, with a foot on the boundary line, and no contact, should be called for a 9-3 (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) violation if the defender gains any advantage.
Now we have a new (modified) rule, and interpretation. In a screening situation, a screener must have both feet on the playing court, and if he doesn't, and if there is any contact, no matter how "legal" everything else is, the screener is to be called for a
blocking foul.
4.40.2: SITUATION: A1 sets a stationary screen with one foot on or outside a boundary line. B1 makes contact with A1 in the torso. RULING: A blocking foul is ruled on A1 because a player may not be out-of-bounds while setting a legal screen.
Now a few of us want to jump on the bandwagon and extrapolate that to say that a screener in such a situation, with a foot on the boundary line, and no contact, should be called for a 9-3 (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) violation if the screener gains any advantage.
Does the NFHS want us to make either of those non-contact assumptions?
Inquiring minds want to know.