Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Exactly, this player is allowed to go out of bounds. Therefore, it stands to reason he's allowed to be partly out of bounds. You can't call a violation on this player just because he stops half-way and happens, while standing still, to get in the way of a defender.
|
Apples and freaking oranges.
On an unrestricted throw-in, teammates of the thrower are allowed to go OOB on the same
endline as part of the throw-in only. If we follow your line of reasoning, it would not be a violation for a player to set a screen with one foot OOB on that endline, but it would be a a violation if the same player set the exact same screen on a sideline or the other endline instead. And on a spot throw-in, it would be a violation for a teammate to set a screen with a foot OOB on
any boundary line. Somehow, I really don't think that the purpose and intent of the rule was to legalize one instance only out of eight possible throw-in situations.
Rule 9-3-3 doesn't differentiate between being partially OOB or completely OOB. It simply states that it's a violation to leave the floor for an
unauthorized reason. If an illegal advantage was gained, it
is an unauthorized reason. And we know from the play where a defender can't have a LGP with one foot on a boundary line that the FED considers a player to be simply OOB. Nowayinhell did the rulesmakers ever intend setting screens OOB to be an
authorized reason for that player to go OOB. The POE cited above tells us that.