Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett
The March "Referee Magazine" arrived today and in the Test Yourself on page 19, brings up our former hot topic about B1 standing with one foot OOB when A1 charges into him. According to Referee, this is a PC foul. B1 having a foot OOB doesn't matter. They cite rule 4.19.6 which is just the rule on PC fouls and doesn't really address the OOB factor and case 4.19.3.C which is a typo, since that case deals with intentional fouls. If they meant case 4.19.6.C - that deals with airborne shooters, so I really don't see their justification for their answer.
However, since I am smarter than the magazine (sorry, Barry), I have found something to support the theory that B1 can have legal guarding position with one foot (or maybe both) OOB. The problem we have dealt with in the past on this issue somewhat was dependent on defining the "floor" as just being the inbounds portion of the gym (I don't say "court" because rule 1 defines the court as being the inbounds portion by giving dimensions) or if the "floor" includes the OOB portion of the gym, since the establishment of legal guarding position deals with the players relationship to the "floor".
Rule 7.1.1 states: "A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary." This statement says to me that the "floor" can include territory outside a boundary. The boundaries are the OOB lines.
I think it's fair to then draw the conclusion that you can have a foot OOB and still be on the "floor".
Of course, this leads to the "voluntarily leaving the court" arguement, and that's a whole other bunch of bananas.
Also - in Referee's defense, an article on throw-ins reminded me that if B1 reaches across the boundary and fouls A1 while A1 is holding the ball, not only is it an intentional foul (which, of course, I remembered), but also serves as the first delay warning for a boundary violation (which I heard about 5 years ago, but forgot). While there is no specific case for this, boundary violation rule 9.2.11 and the subsequent penalties for article 11 read as a group supports this.
|
My concern is this:
We penalize an offensive player for leaving the playing area, whether on purpose or not. (I've called it once - late in the 4th quarter in a championship game. The player surely didn't *mean* to go OOB, but did nonetheless, to use a screen and catch a pass while inbounds again. He then jacked up a three and I waved it off, called the T.)
So, we penalize an offensive person for not being to perform normal offensive movements associated with the game entirely inbounds. Why do we not keep the same requirements for the defense. What I'm reading from the thread earlier and Mark's text above is that it is ok for the defense to leave the playing area to circumvent the rules of the game. He is OOB because should the ball touch him, it's an out-of-bounds violation!
Just throwing that out there.
..Mike