View Single Post
  #80 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2004, 12:45pm
coachz_216 coachz_216 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 59
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB

Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by coachz_216
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by coachz_216


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.
Actually, this ISN"T legal defense. Feet need to be at roughly the same width as the shoulders, wider is not legal. And I can't see that it would be so difficult to just glance down and see whether my foot is on the line or not. Even if the defender leaves as much as 6" there's no way the dribbler is going to get through legally. I can't see that this rule really inhibits a defender too badly.
First, it's not illegal for a defender to have his feet wider than shoulder width apart. If it were then ALL good defenders would be illegal all the time. Proper defensive technique has feet wider than shoulder width (actually, for some players, depending on their physical abilities, the wider--the better. Every good coach teaches "low & wide" in some way, shape, or form if they teach good defensive technique). It is true that contact with the knees, legs, etc, that are outside the frame of their body is a foul...hence it is important that a defender be allowed to move laterally (without concern for where their feet are) so as to maintain their body in front of the offensive player--not just an extended leg.

Second, Rule 10.6.2 states "...If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent..." If a defensive player, properly taught, is in perfect defensive position, playing in a textbook, defensive stance, and stops with his foot just short of a boundary (trying to abide by this ridiculous rule), there is more than adequate room for a skilled dribbler to take a line directly over his outstretched leg and "...have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent..."

Again--a poorly thought out rule that creates an impossible situation for a defender--even if he is doing everything perfectly!



Coach -- I'm a little puzzled by your assertions. I've seen a lot of really good defense without the legs being wider than the shoulders. I'm not sure wider is better in every case. Furthermore, as to legality, you're right that it's not illegal to have the legs spread clear into the splits as long as there's no contact. But around here we are instructed to define the wide leg spread as tripping, if the leg is the only contact. Also, defense is not responsible for any contact should defender have legal guarding position and be less than three feet from the line. Any contact is PC or nothing. Lastly, I'm having trouble seeing a defender maintaining a legal position with his leg so outstretched that the dribbler "hurdles over" it,and I'm having trouble seeing a dribbler with enough moxie to pull that off. It seems to me that a defender with feet set right at shoulder width facing dribbler, one foot maybe three-six inches from sideline, is pretty solid defense. Stepping on the line doesn't help the position in any way.
I was a very successful college & hs coach for the past 11 years. I would say the cornerstone of my success as a coach has been my teaching on how to be an effective defender. Proper defensive stance (for most perimeter guarding situations) has the defender's feet significantly wider than shoulder width, butt down, weight on the balls of the feet, etc. As I said before, how wide depends on the individual (size/athleticism). The goal of the stance is to maintain a wide base with outstanding balance to enable the defender to change directions as quickly as possible. If you can't understand that this is how proper defense is taught (not just by me, but by almost every coach at every level) in the game, then I'm not sure that this discussion need to continue.

I agree (and have stated before) that any contact with a leg, knee, etc. extended outside the frame of the body is a defensive foul. Hence, the saying "move your feet" on defense--you have to move laterally to keep you body in front of the offensive player so as to ensure that any contact is either a no-call or PC. The "defensive tool" of the defender is his body--not his leg. In order for him to be able to play defense from boundary to boundary, he needs to be allowed to have a foot OOB when he is very near the boundary. Otherwise, there is no way to place his BODY in front of an offensive player who is driving along the bondary.

As for your assertion that the "defense is not responsible for any contact should defender have legal guarding position and be less than three feet from the line..." I would like to know the rule book reference for than rule.

As for "having trouble seeing a dribbler with enough moxie to pull that off..." Then you must not be officiating HS or above basketball. I was an all-stater in HS and I can assure you that I would have readily "attacked" a defenders out-stretched lead leg knowing that he couldn't take another step to cut me off & that the contact was (by rule) going to be a foul on him. I have also been fortunate enough to coach players (even my HS players) who would have undoubdtedly done the same. As a coach--I would make a point of teaching it (especially to my better players). I would agree that JRHI girls probably aren't skilled enough to take advantage of flaws in the rules--but quality HS players, who are well-coached most certainly will!

[Edited by coachz_216 on Nov 11th, 2004 at 12:50 PM]
Reply With Quote