Quote:
Originally posted by coachz_216
Quote:
Originally posted by rwest
Quote:
Originally posted by coachz_216
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.
|
Coach Z,
As it was explained to me, one rational for this rule change is to NOT give the defender special treatment. An offensive player with the ball can not step on the line and be considered in play. Why should a defender be given that right? If the offense is required to stay in bounds, the same should apply to the defense.
I've had the same concerns as your association. I've been worried about the offensive player that takes advantage of this rule and clocks the defender. I believe we have recourse within the rules. I could call a double foul: blocking on the defender and a flagrant foul on the offender if I believe the offender intentional tried to hurt the defender. A flagrant foul by rule can be called for violent contact. However, I had better be able to sell this call as it will mean the offensive player is disqualified.
|
rwest--
Thanks for your post. I've heard that argument as well. I'm not going to repeat what I've already posted earlier in this thread--I hope you can take the time to find some of my earlier scenarios/justifications for why I think this is a bad rule & needs to be changed. I've considered it for the past year & tried to see it from all three perspectives (player,coach,official).
I like what some of the posters said about how they would/have handled it. I think the block/flagrant call is very extreme and not very likely to happen. If you've got the guts to eject a dribbler who just goes hard to the basket and "happens" to run over a defender--then you are a braver soul than any of the officials that I have seen.
I think the FC/BC division line question exemplifies why this is a ludicrous rule. I haven't heard anyone say that a defender shouldn't be allowed to step on the division line and maintain legal guarding position. The penalty for the offense in this case is exactly the same as stepping on any other boundary.
The bottom line to me is that Block/Charge is called (not necessarily by rule) based on the defender's ability to "center" his body, in proper defensive position, in front of the offensive player before the offensive player gets to that spot. In order for a defender to get properly "centered" on an offensive player's body, when near the boundary (or division line), he is likely to have to have a foot OOB. To me that's not an "unfair" advantage to a defender--it's simply allowing them to move to a position where they can appropriately guard the offensive player.
|
I haven't read every post on this thread. So I apologize if I'm rehashing old arguments. I've got a couple of points based on your reply.
1. "If you've got the guts to eject a dribbler who just goes hard to the basket and "happens" to run over a defender--then you are a braver soul than any of the officials that I have seen."
I'm not a braver soul and in the scenario you gave I would not call a flagrant foul. The scenario I have in mind is when it is obvious to everyone that the offensive player was trying to hurt the defender. Just going hard to the basket is not enough. Seeing the defender's foot on the line, lowering his shoulder like a linebacker and giving it all he 's got is more what I was thinking about.
2. "I haven't heard anyone say that a defender shouldn't be allowed to step on the division line and maintain legal guarding position."
That's because the division line is part of the playing area of the court. The sidelines/endlines are not.
3. "In order for a defender to get properly "centered" on an offensive player's body, when near the boundary (or division line), he is likely to have to have a foot OOB. To me that's not an "unfair" advantage to a defender--it's simply allowing them to move to a position where they can appropriately guard the offensive player."
He doesn't "have" to have a foot out of bounds. He chose to have a foot out of bounds. He could have set up further in bounds and avoided the situation. Again, I don't believe the defender should be able to step out of bounds to cut off the sideline/baseline. If we allow that, then we are giving him/her more space to play in than we allow the offensive player. If we allow his/her foot to be touching the line, then why not allow his/her foot to be completely over the line. How far out of bounds are we going to give the defender? Are you going to allow the offensive player to go out of bounds to avoid the contact? No. Then why allow the defender to setup out of bounds to get the PC call?
I guess we are just going to have to respectfully disagree on this one.