Stepping OB

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Would the contact be ruled any differently than we would if B1 was standing on the sideline and A1 ran them over?

Since B1 is not in a legal guarding position, could they be the beneficiary of anything less than an intentional or flagrant foul?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yes, B1 has the right to occupy any position on the court and cannot be dislodged from there. B1 does not have LGP though, so does not get the extra defensive rights which that conveys, such as the ability to be moving laterally or obliquely at the time of contact. However, if B1 is stationary, then LGP is not necessary and A1 would be called for charging should he run over this defender.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, B1 has the right to occupy any position on the court and cannot be dislodged from there. B1 does not have LGP though, so does not get the extra defensive rights which that conveys, such as the ability to be moving laterally or obliquely at the time of contact. However, if B1 is stationary, then LGP is not necessary and A1 would be called for charging should he run over this defender.

Agree.

[bob jenkins]

2004-05 Interps
SITUATION 13: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

(a similar interp was given in 2003-04)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2004-05 Interps SITUATION 13: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline ... RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.

Wow! Great research. An interpretation that "disappeared" almost a dozen and a half years ago. Fooled Nevadaref (the "Interpretation King"), Camron Rust, and later me, after reading their posts. Impressive. Thanks.

4-23-1: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

I do recall videos of late game set plays where inbounders run the end line and defenders run over screeners where the screeners have a foot on the endline, and are called for blocking fouls, even though stationary and facing the opponent. Of course, since the rule changed and we no longer shoot team control fouls, we will seldom see this late game set play anymore, and that's a good thing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... a similar interp was given in 2003-04 ...

SITUATION 7: B1 obtains a legal guarding position on A1, who is dribbling the ball near the sideline. There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line, or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), a blocking foul shall be called on B1. B1 may not be touching out of bounds. In (b), a player-control foul shall be called on A1; B1 had established and maintained a legal guarding position. (4-23-2,3; 4-35-1)

[billyu2]

The definition of the "playing court" is found in the very first rule in the book.