Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
What is right about a player being OOB and being able to maintain legal guarding position?? If an offensive player goes out of bounds to avoid traffic it is a T. Granted this is because they usually do it on purpose, and the defensive player concentrating on the offense won't know exactly when they are OOB. As for an earlier statement that the player takes up more space on defense, having your legs splayed out and that is where the contact occurs is a blocking foul as well, actually close to tripping. I can see absolutely no logical reason to allow the defense to maintain legal guarding position while OOB. As for waiting until the defense is on the line then lowering a shoulder, that to me is an intentional foul, maybe a T. In all honesty in the past if the defense is on the line, and the offense knew it, the smart play would be to hand the defender the ball and he is out of bounds, yep sounds like a highly intelligent defensive ploy to me....
|
...I knew I was going to end up in the middle of this one again...here we go!
This rule does creates a situation that is unfair for the defender (by rule). Defenders play in a position with their feet wider than shoulder width apart, butt down, "head on ball". This means that their stance is wider (laterally) than an offensive player (if you choose to ignore this reality, then I'm not sure if you can understand the rest of this). As they are guarding a dribbler, heading towards a boundary, their lead foot is going to reach the line before the offensive player. This is "textbook", perfect legal guarding position. At any point before the defender's foot touches the boundary, any contact has to either be a no-call or PC. Now, according to this ridiculous FED rule, the defender has to stop before he reaches the boundary in order to maintain legal guarding position--if he touches that line, any contact (other than obviously flagrant/intentional stuff) has to be a block. If he does stop, according to the FED's rules for guarding a moving ball-handler, if the dribbler can get his "head/shoulders" past the defender, the defender assumes responsiblity for that contact as well. If the defender, in a proper defensive stance/position, has to stop before he touches the line, then their is no practical way (within the current rules) for a defender to stop a player from driving past him at any boundary without fouling them.
As far as an offensive player giving the ball to a defender who is out--he certainly can--if he wants a throw-in from that spot. Some teams do like to run special inbound plays to score--I guess this could be their first offensive objective (to get a throw-in at a certain spot?) I also freely admit that if a defender, in perfect legal guarding position (with a foot OOB) reaches out and touches the ball, you have an immediate dead ball--ball goes to the offense at that spot with a throw-in.
I have played (all state in HS, all-conference in College), coached (for 11 years with numerous coaching awards & successful winning teams), and officiated for four years. I am certain that this "injustice" of allowing defenders to leave the boundaries of the court and not allowing the offensive players to do the same is not a problem in the game. I don't know where the push for this rule change/emphasis has come from, but I suspect that it is a misguided attempt by some legalistic, "rule-book" worm (I don't mean that to sound as disparaging as it does!) who read that offensive players weren't allowed to leave the floor and defensive players were and thought "AHA! We've got to fix that!" Hogwash--they've created a situation that is unfair for the defense.
I say call it like they are advocating in WA. There must be some smart guys up there!