|
I agree that the Fed is determined to have this called this way--they have made it very clear. I also know that I haven't heard a compelling argument for why this is so important. They always say something to the effect that "offensive players aren't allowed to leave the floor to gain an advantage, so defensive players shouldn't be allowed to either..." --hogwash! I'm not sure what legalist on the rules committee is making such a fuss about this, but it's arguing over something irrelevant.
As a coach, I talked to my players about the rule and told them that we weren't even going to worry about it. When a good defender is in a legal guarding position, sliding legally to cut off an offensive player's penetration, they occupy a wider place on the floor. Consequently, when they near the sideline the defender's foot will reach the boundary first--by saying that he forfeits his legal guarding position because he touched the line is ridiculous. I told our players not to worry about the boundaries, just play like we always do. If the official calls it--so be it. A good official is going to look at each play individually and decide which way to go. If a defender in great position beats an offensive player to the spot and happens to be a few inches onto the line--I would think a good official would just say "I didn't see him on the line...", call the PC foul and head the other way.
I understand that the rules committee is trying to get consistency with the on-the-court/off-the-court thing, but I think they are sorely mistaken on this one. Having defensive players leaving the court to maintain legal guarding position was not a problem that needed corrected.
Oh well--life goes on...
|