Legal Guarding Position...both feet

[RookieDude]

I remember reading a discussion a while back, on this forum, about the new Editorial Change to Rule 4-23.
This change clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the "playing court".

We had some here state that they would not call a charge on a player if the defender had even a portion of his/her foot outside the "playing court".

Well, at our WA state rules clinic the other night...our Rules Clinician stated that as long as a guard had initially obtained a legal guarding position, it didn't matter if his/her foot was out of bounds (off the playing court) when the contact occurs...if the player in control of the ball "charges" into the defender you would not have to call a "block" just because the defender has one foot out of bounds. Now, he did state that if a player COMES FROM OUT OF BOUNDS, that is not an initial legal guarding position...therfore, even if the defender is "charged" into...the call would be a "block" if even just a portion of a foot is out of bounds.

So in conclusion, it matters where the defender first started...was he/she out of bounds initially or not...that is one of the determining factors on how we would call this.

In fact, 4-23-3a states...After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is NOT required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.

Maybe this has already been resolved here...I just remembered reading the part about someone not calling a "player control foul" because the defender had a foot that was not on the playing court.

Comments?

RD