There was recently a thread where a team would attempt to draw a foul after a made basket by setting a screen on the person defending the throw in and the thrower would run the base line. The attempt is to have the defender not see the screen and run into it, thus drawing a foul.

What if the screener has his foot on the OOB line? This year we had a editorial change on legal guarding position, but this is a screen. I would guess that same would apply as the screener is not a legal player if he is out of bounds.

What do you think?

agreed. But the rule change only applies to initial legal gaurding position. After that he may be outside. No?

Am I missing something? If a defender runs into a legally set blind screen, even with force, where is the foul? If he forced or pushed his way through the screen then we would have a foul. In this play are you must be anticipating the latter.

Footlocker. I agree.

If the screener has a foot OOB when the contact occurs, the foul for contact-if called- is always on the screener.

Uhm... Based on what? Is "legal guarding position" required for protection on a screen?

Assuming the latter here, I've got a charging foul on the screened player (defense). While the screener may not have LGP, she is still entitled to her spot on the floor, is she not?

Assuming the latter here, I've got a charging foul on the screened player (defense). While the screener may not have LGP, she is still entitled to her spot on the floor, is she not?
[/B][/QUOTE]Yes, the screener is entitled to her spot <b>on</b> the court. She is not entitled to a spot <b>off of</b> the court. Check out the link below from the NFHS. They outline the sprit and intent of the rules there.

http://www.nfhs.org/Sports/basketbal...clarified.html

Spirit and Intent- <i>The spirit and intent of the game of basketball has traditionally been that play occurs within the boundary lines"</i>.

Then check out the section titled " Balance between Offense and Defense". That principle holds true for both teams. A player is gaining an unfair advantage if they are permitted to use an area outside of the playing court. Using those principles, I don't think that it's much of a leap to state that a screen is illegal if the screener is OOB.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 18th, 2004 at 05:05 PM]

A screener is not bound by the legal guarding positions rules but is bound by the rules of screening. Legal guarding position only applies to defensive players.

Rule 4

SECTION 23 GUARDING
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body <b>in the path of an offensive opponent</b>.

SECTION 39 SCREEN
ART. 1 . . . A screen is legal action by a player who, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.
ART. 2 . . . To establish a legal screening position:
a. The screener may face any direction.
b. Time and distance are relevant.
c. The screener must be stationary, except when both are moving in the same path and the same direction.
ART. 3 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from the front or side, the screener may be anywhere short of contact.
ART. 4 . . . When screening a stationary opponent from behind, the screener must allow the opponent one normal step backward without contact.
ART. 5 . . . When screening a moving opponent, the screener must allow the opponent time and distance to avoid contact. The distance need not be more than two strides.
ART. 6 . . . When screening an opponent who is moving in the same path and direction as the screener is moving, the opponent is responsible for contact if the screener slows up or stops.


No screener will gain an advantage by having a foot OOB. If anything, it will reduce their advantage. If they are near or on the line, that leaves absolutely NO room for a teammate to use the screen. The teammate must go on the inbounds side of them. If they go on the OOB side, then you have something else to call. So, the more they move OOB, the less efective the screen. Therefore, with a decreasing advantage by being OOB, contact, if sufficient for a foul is the responsibility of the screened player.

No they may not be outside the boundary even after establishing LGP..

As far as a screen goes, if you want a foul on the screened player, I don't think it is a big leap to require the screening player to gbe inbounds. If they are OOB it is incidental contact...and even if they are in bounds the contact has to be pretty severe and displace the screener significantly.

Cameron, thanks for the quotes but...
 

I think you missed the scenario. The screen was setup on the person guarding the person throwing the ball in. When he runs the endline, the defensive player will run along too. The screen would not be blind as it would be from the side.

So there would be an advantage in this particular case to having one foot OOB since the person he defending is already legally OOB.

Thanks to all for the good comments.

Yes, the screener is entitled to her spot <b>on</b> the court. She is not entitled to a spot <b>off of</b> the court. Check out the link below from the NFHS. They outline the sprit and intent of the rules there.

http://www.nfhs.org/Sports/basketbal...clarified.html

Spirit and Intent- <i>The spirit and intent of the game of basketball has traditionally been that play occurs within the boundary lines"</i>.

Then check out the section titled " Balance between Offense and Defense". That principle holds true for both teams. A player is gaining an unfair advantage if they are permitted to use an area outside of the playing court. Using those principles, I don't think that it's much of a leap to state that a screen is illegal if the screener is OOB.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 18th, 2004 at 05:05 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

The only time this comes into play on a throwin is when the offense can run the endline. In that case, A2 is perfectly within his rights to be "out of bounds" and then is not leaving the playing court. If we're talking about a spot throw in, I can see your point (perhaps). However, this is different since the playing court includes the area outside the endline. The offense has the right to be out of bounds or in bounds, but the defense does not.
I've still got a legal screen.

Adam

One more thought. If they're off the court to the point where they aren't entitled to their spot, wouldn't that by rule be a "T" (leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) rather than a blocking foul? Note, this doesn't apply to an end line throw in as much as for a spot throwin. It might even apply to a normal screen in regular play near a line. Losing legal guarding position is not the same as losing the right to your spot.

Interesting
 

That's an interesting take on it, Adam. Let me try and argue the point here. . .the offense can run the endline. They can pass to a teammate OOB. These rules give the offense an advantage to break a press, for example. I think that placing your foot on that line is giving you an advantage not intended by the rule. I've still got an illegal block. Anybody else? Do the rules address that scenario?

I...
 

I have always been told that legal play takes place in-bounds. Therefore a player on the boundry line is illegal and the screener should be charged with the foul!

-- Take care -- Craig

I don't think you can assess a T. The player hasn't left the court. I think we are talking about a player who has a foot on the line or part of the foot oob. Players go off the inbounds area all the time as part of the game. We would have a lot of T's.

If were are talking about a throwin after a made basket, then a teammate of the thrower can, by rule, legally be OOB along the endline where the throwin is occuring.

Yes but the obvious purpose of that is to receive a pass on the OOB side of the line. Setting a screen is not that situation and if he received a pass with one foot in and the other OOB... we've got a throw-in violation, ball to the other team.

In fact, didn't we have a clarification this year that a throw-in must be from completely OOB - one foot in one foot out is not allowed?

Don't know that I like the new foot-out-of-bounds rule (I would have a very difficult time calling a block, if I felt the dribbler, and I hate to use the word intentionally, so let's say with deliberateness, created the contact). The new rule/clarification however, doesn't leave much room for discussion. I think the only lattitude an official has is to either see the foot OOB or to "not notice its OOB placement." And with that you may be on a sinking boat because somebody else, like the coach who is 5 feet from the collision, DOES NOTICE the OOB placement and wants the proper call to be made.... independent of deliberateness or intent.

A screener OOB is a new twist but I'm inclined to go along with the premise that play must take place inside the lines.

I guess my understanding of the rule change is that it affects legal guarding position, which only really affects a call when the defender is moving. If a stationary defender has his back turned to an offensive player yet gets hammered, I'm not calling a block; even though he never had LGP. Same scenario here, just because he doesn't have LGP doesn't mean he's not entitled to his spot on the floor. A screener never has LGP and the incumbant right to move, so I don't think it applies.

I see LGP and right to a spot as two separate issues, I guess, and I'm having a hard time equating the loss of LGP with a loss to the right to a spot; or equating not having LGP with not having a right to a spot.
If the screener has a foot on the line, and the screened decides to shove his way through; LGP has nothing to do with it, IMHO.

Adam

Then, respectfully, your understanding of the rule change is incorrect. A defender, even if completly stationary, is now required to have neither foot OOB when contact occurs, in order for a PC foul to occur. Go back and re-read JR's post and the link he provided. The game is to played inside the boundary lines. That is clearly the interpretation for defenders.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the interpretation is the same for a screener.