Thu May 12, 2005, 02:21pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 270
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tjones1
Quote:
Originally posted by johnny1784
Quote:
Originally posted by tjones1
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2):The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.
Peace
|
I saw this one coming last year at the rules interp. As already talked about, there remains the question about the defense, but I'm sure it will get answered.
|
A defender violates when leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, e.g.; A1 sets a screen along the endline for A2, then B1 runs around A1, going out of bounds while covering A2... Signal a violation B1.
A defender, B1 tries to establish LGP along the sideline, attempting to induce a charge call on A1, places one foot on the court and the other out of bounds... Signal a violation B1. Others may disagree that B1 left the confines of the court by placing one foot out of bounds, yet will it apply only with both feet clearly out of bounds?
But if a player accidentally leaves the court through no fault of their own, I wouldnÂ’t penalize the player with a violation.
|
The whole reasoning behind the defender is what good is a violation going to do whenever the other team has the ball already.
I disagree about the violation on B1 when trying to establish LGP. IMO, it is not a violation, by rule it's a foul -- block.
|
Good point. The old rule would issue a T to any player who left the court for unauthorized reasons. I was trying to show an example on how it would apply on a defender but I wrote B1 tried to establish LGP having one foot out of bounds. The new rule should prevent all players from playing outside of court boundary lines without issuing a T.
Right?
|
Threaded Mode
