Quote:
Originally Posted by OHBBREF
My point here is that all of the references for being legal - refer to the player being inbounds which he is not.
I am saying that unless the actions of the ball handler are seriously aggressive, unsporting or there is some obvious contact that would be a charge under any circumstances, I can not give the defender the benifit of the doubt it they are not legally on the floor. I am not talking legal guarding position, I am talking about not being legal period. infact in an other thread people have talked about violating him for having his fut on the line.
So l let's twist it this way - and see what you think.
Let's take the ball out of the situation. and make it a rub off screen where A2 is at the baseline with a foot on the baseline while A1 makes a rub off cut inbounds that looses the defender B1 due to contact with A2 is that a legal screen?
|
Be careful about confusing a player being OOB, with a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason; those are two different scenarios. Having a foot OOB is
not leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.
Having a foot OOB can affect whether a player has LGP, and whether or not a screen is considered legal. However, there's still that annoying little phrase about a player being entitled to a spot on the floor. So, in your example, if A2 is set on the spot before B1 starts the move and runs into A2, responsibility for the contact still rests with B1.