Defender with one foot off the court

[OverAndBack]

We were told in the course that I took that a defender not only couldn't have one foot on the court and one on the court and establish a legit defensive position on the charge/block thing (new rule, I know that), but that also a defender couldn't even have one foot off the court and one on the court if he was guarding someone, anytime, anywhere.

At the time I said "Good luck being the first guy to call that," but yesterday, on an inbounds play (in a very small gym with not much room on the sides, but still), one of the players on the defending team lined up along the sideline with one foot on the court and the other in his bench area. I motioned for him to put his foot back on the floor.

Should I have let it go? Or waited until the inbounds and blown the violation? Is that kinda-sorta a plane violation on a throwin, since the sideline he was straddling was the sideline on which I was administering the throwin?

It didn't have any effect on anything, and no one said anything, I was just wondering, as part of my continuing education, in case it comes up again.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

What level of play?

Team warning for delay of game would be appropriate if he was Out Of Bounds to defend the thrower. Technical foul for next offense.

If his being OOB was... say to prevent an in bounds offensive player from running down the sideline... then your instructions were probably okay. "Gotta stay on the court."

With narrow sideline or endline areas, I like to place my foot at a particular board on the floor or designate an imaginary line and say to the defender stay behind this line. Don't reach beyond or step beyond this line and then hand the ball to the thrower. Sometimes this is difficult because no one will be there to defend until after you have handed the ball to the thrower.... now what? I suggest stopping the play, stating the boundary limitations and enforcing that boundary.

Narrow areas create some definite problems.

[OverAndBack]

It was 6th grade boys.

He wasn't defending the thrower, he was about 6 feet down the sideline from the thrower. Had he been right in front of the thrower, that's easy - breaking the plane (and I believe his team had already been warned about that once prior - but all the games kind of run together). But down the court, not involved in the actual throwin, I thought maybe the mysterious rule of which my instructor (who's been reffing for 44 years) told us in class would come into play.

I thought it was best to just avoid all that stuff and tell the kid to put his foot back on the court.

I guess maybe you could say that if he's got one foot off the court, he's out of bounds, and his team only has four on the floor at that point? Which is illegal as well, right?

[Metrodom]

I believe the "intent" of the rule was to stop some players trying to draw a PLAYER CONTROL FOUL straddling the sideline or endline. I have not seen this happen in games I have worked this year.

[OverAndBack]

I believe you are correct. But not only were we told that a defender had to have both feet on the court (inside the lines) in order to take a legal guarding position and make a case for drawing a charge, a player setting up to guard someone bringing the ball up one sideline couldn't line up with one foot out of bounds as well. That's why I said "Good luck calling that the first time."

I thought maybe this would fall into that category, or the breaking of the plane on the throwin, or four men on the court. Just wondering what I should do if it comes up again.

[BktBallRef]

Don't concern yourself with it unless there's a block/charge situation.

[Camron Rust]

As I say every time when this topic comes up...

A foot on the sideline only has one effect: that player does not have legal guarding position. That player may still be the victim of a player control foul. All they lose by stepping on the line is the right to be moving laterally or obliquely and the right to verticality. A stationary player without LGP can still be fouled.

Imagine the nightmare if it were open season for contact on any player that happened to be OOB.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
I believe you are correct. But not only were we told that a defender had to have both feet on the court (inside the lines) in order to take a legal guarding position and make a case for drawing a charge, a player setting up to guard someone bringing the ball up one sideline couldn't line up with one foot out of bounds as well. That's why I said "Good luck calling that the first time."

Perhaps you are confused...
Both feet on the court (both inbounds) is required to ESTABLISH a legal guarding position. Both feet on the floor is not required to maintain that position - the defender may move laterally and is not required to have any feet on the floor after that initial legal guarding position was established. If, as a defender, you put a foot Out Of Bounds the new rule say that you are now OOB and no longer legally guarding (you are using the OOB area). The new rule says that if there is now contact with the dribbler, a block call should be made.

Originally posted by OverAndBack
I thought maybe this would fall into that category, or the breaking of the plane on the throwin, or four men on the court. Just wondering what I should do if it comes up again.

Four men is ludicrous. Obviously the guy with one foot OOB or in the air is still playing. You're trying to make up an out of this world answer - similar to what I did for a couple of the NFHS Part II test questions this year.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

A foot on the sideline only has one effect: that player does not have legal guarding position. That player may still be the victim of a player control foul. All they lose by stepping on the line is the right to be moving laterally or obliquely and the right to verticality. A stationary player without LGP can still be fouled.

The NFHS doesn't agree with you, Cameron.

See Situation 7(a) of the Rules Interpretations on their website:

http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_interp.htm

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The NFHS doesn't agree with you, Cameron.

See Situation 7(a) of the Rules Interpretations on their website:

http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_interp.htm

Actually, I think they do. In situation 7 that you reference, it is strongly implied that B1 is moving.

"There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso".

For B1 to have LGP by having both feet inbounds and then stay in the path such that one foot is out implies movement.

B1 is moving and loses LGP when they step on the line. Thus, it's an automatic block for being in motion when contact occurs. It doesn't matter which direction B1 is moving. However, if B1 were stationary, it is possible to draw a foul in absence of LGP. The casebook has several cases on this topic.

The crux of the entire issue is legal guarding position. Rule 4-23 is the definition of LGP. The only fouls that are impacted are those that depend on LGP. For any foul that does not depend on LGP, the rule is unchanged...not an automatic block simply based on location. If you look at the "Further Clarified page", it repeatedly reinforces that LGP is the issue

"In order for a player to establish legal guarding position both feet must be touching the playing court (in bounds)."

"In order to maintain legal guarding position, the guard must have in-bounds status"

"Understanding that the defensive player must have in-bounds status to maintain legal guarding position should help alleviate any confusion."


Consider this case: B1 standing by the sideline talking to his coach. B1 has one foot on the line. A1, seeing this, dribble across the court towards a lone B1 and deliberately plows over B1. You can't tell me that you're going to call a blocking foul on B1. That is a PC foul at a minimum and possibly an intentional foul.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Jan 26th, 2004 at 06:16 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

B1 is moving and loses LGP when they step on the line. Thus, it's an automatic block for being in motion when contact occurs.

Nope, it's an automatic block on B1 for being OOB when the contact occurs. Camron, I think that you're trying to read something into that interp that isn't there. Situation 7(a) is written as being all-inclusive. It doesn't mention moving or standing still. It just states quite plainly that, if a defender has one foot OOB, the call has to be a block. That's all you have to look for to call this play--if a defender's foot is OOB,it's gotta be on the defender if contact occurs.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by OverAndBack


Should I have let it go? Or waited until the inbounds and blown the violation? Is that kinda-sorta a plane violation on a throwin, since the sideline he was straddling was the sideline on which I was administering the throwin?

It didn't have any effect on anything, and no one said anything, I was just wondering, as part of my continuing education, in case it comes up again.

In general, if you see something you don't like then fix it. Tell a player to move, stop moving, knock it off, shut up, etc etc. This goes double if you see something you really do not want to have a whistle for.

[OverAndBack]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Four men is ludicrous. Obviously the guy with one foot OOB or in the air is still playing. You're trying to make up an out of this world answer - similar to what I did for a couple of the NFHS Part II test questions this year.

Sorry. I'm new here.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Actually, I think they do. In situation 7 that you reference, it is strongly implied that B1 is moving.

"There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso".

For B1 to have LGP by having both feet inbounds and then stay in the path such that one foot is out implies movement.

B1 is moving and loses LGP when they step on the line. Thus, it's an automatic block for being in motion when contact occurs. It doesn't matter which direction B1 is moving. However, if B1 were stationary, it is possible to draw a foul in absence of LGP. The casebook has several cases on this topic.

Camron, whether he's moving or not has absolutely nothing to do with it. Since when does a defender have to be stationary to gave LGP? Answer: He doesn't. But he does have to be inbounds.

It's blocking because he's standing OOB. WHether he's moving or not is of no consequence. You're reading too much into this.

[DJ]

I suppose A1 could commit an intentional or a flagrant foul on B1 but not a player control foul.