Bringing this over from another board.

Is it a block or charge if player A (with the ball) runs into player B after B has established legal guarding position except that B has one foot inbounds and one foot out of bounds?

PC!

Is it a foul if B1 grabs A1's arm assuming B1's OOB? Same difference, I should think.

Has legal guarding position REALLY been established if B1 is standing out of bounds?

My guess is no.... foul on B1.

Ren

I'm going to weasel out on this one and not give an answer this early in the thread, but here is some food for thought. If A1 punches B1 during play while B1 is standing with one (or both) feet OOB, is it a flagrant foul or a no-call. And - is there a difference if the contact would have just been a common foul?

And - don't flame me for weaseling out. Homer Simpson said that weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals - except the weasel.

My guess is you've never played for a coach who told you to stick that one let OOB to cut off baseline. ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

If A1 punches B1 during play while B1 is standing with one (or both) feet OOB, is it a flagrant foul or a no-call.

Mark, I just don't get the connection here. Any punch by any team member (player, substiute, coach, trainer, scorer) anywhere in the gym is a flagrant foul. What would it matter if the punched player were in bounds or OOB? If any official ever had a situation where a punch was thrown during the game and he had a no-call, I don't think he'd be officiating anymore.

Am I missing your point, or was that the point that you were trying to make?

I love this quote. I love the Simpsons. Sort of a "guilty pleasure". You know it's bad for you, but you can't stay away. My wife hates the Simpsons. But when she watches them, she laughs out loud every time.

Chuck

If the defensive player has established legal guarding position and is forcing the ball handler to move back and forth across the court (full-court press scenario) and the ball handler lowers his/her shoulder and plows the defender close to the sideline, you are going to call a block and tell the coach it was because their defender had one foot on the sideline?? I think not...that has got to be a PC call...if A1's momentum on a fast break lay-in takes him oob under the basket and then b2 clobbers him are we not calling that because A1 was oob?? I am confused as to why this wouldn't be a pc call right away...

Establishing a defensive position with one foot on the line is not "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason". This is a legal defensive position and A1 should be hit with a PC foul.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett Quote: If A1 punches B1 during play while B1 is standing with one (or both) feet OOB, is it a flagrant foul or a no-call. Mark, I just don't get the connection here. Any punch by any team member (player, substiute, coach, trainer, scorer) anywhere in the gym is a flagrant foul.

Just to clarify, as we talked about this in another post last week, this is not a flagrant foul. It is a flagrant technical foul. 10-3-10

Chuckster - you got it. The point I was trying to make was that fouls are not necessarily based on the fact of whether the fouled player was inbounds or not, in fact, they're not even necessarily based on whether the player was in the game or not.

As to The Simpsons, I feel kind of the same way about The Three Stooges. However, my wife thinks The Three Stooges is a documentary.

Speaking of off the topic, did any of you see South Park
tonight? Both my kids made me watch it. It was maybe
THE funniest thing I have ever seen on TV, period.
The topic was Osama bin whatzitz, if you get it on your
cable you need to see it.

Let's go to the book! 4-23 defines guarding and legal guarding position. No where in this section is in or out-of-bounds referenced. Only the floor is referenced, not the court or a location on it. Where the book says ".. The guard must have both feet touching the floor. ..." are you going to interprete that as meaning "... touching the floor and inbounds"?

Further, once legal guarding position is obtained, article 3 applies and reads:

Art 3 ... After the initial guarding position is obtained:

a. The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the floor or continue facing the opponent.

OK, so if you previously interpreted "on the floor" as implying inbounds, then once legal guarding position is obtained, then to be consistant you need to interprete 4-23-3a as not requiring both feet to be inbounds and the defender could be OOB and still have legal guarding position

So, unless someone can show me where the floor means the inbounds area of the court, I've got a PC.

The play described in the original posting as always been one that I could never come to grips with, but Barry's evaluation really hit the nail on the head and I intend to incorporate it into my class instruction and guarding and screening.

Mark,
I can't agree with you on this one.! I think you should rethink it.
I don't believe the intent of the rules would consider a defensive player to be maintaining a legal defensive guarding position while part of him / her are standing OOB.
I would call the foul on the defence.
Pistol

Like the lack of a proper casebook example for the throw-in plane, T or not to T, after the ball has been released and hit, we are in need of direction from above on this one.

Lacking a definitive answer in book or manual I’ll tell why I feel it is a PC call.

A defensive player can legally be out of bounds. Why else would the Simplified and Illustrated make such a strong point, with a picture in 7.1.1 (Out of Bounds section) of a defender having only 1 foot inbounds when the ball handler touches him? If the defender were not legal, than the play would have been over long before the touch.

Then there is the misunderstanding, IMHO, of the use of the term “legal guarding position (LGP).” I have always read the term as saying that after a defender has established and maintained what the rules calls LGP then any contact is a call against the offensive player. This is very different from believing that LGP must be obtained before there can be an offensive foul. - B2 is guarding A2 and has his back to A1 who is driving towards the lane. B2 has not assumed LGP on A1; he does not even know where A1 is. Can A1 legally charge into B2? No, because B2 is entitled to his space on the floor. The same can be said in the situation where A1 runs up the back of B1 who is moving in the same direction of A1 but has never established LGP.

Even before Rule 1 in the Rules Book we have “THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES” section (caps in the book). Here we run into advantage/disadvantage. Now the questions to ask are what advantage does the defender gain by having a foot on the line, or over the line? And to what disadvantage has the ball handler been put? The answer to both is none. Why none, because of 7.2.c, which we will call the 3 Foot rule for lack of a better term. The defender already has legally closed down the path by being with 3 foot of the line.

If anything the defender has taken his legal advantage away from himself by being on the line. What is the width of the average male HS player? Lets say 18 to 20 inches. To that we can add 4 inches for each arm, which are down to protect vital parts. We are now looking at 2ft 4inches. So, if we could freeze the play and draw a line 5ft 4in from the sideline, we would have a so called “line in the sand.” If crossed by the ball handler, any contact will result in a PC.

Whew! -RecRef

Based on what rule?

Rule Book References-NCAA-2001
 

Well Guys ,You all made me look this up- Congrats!!!!,
In my NCAA Rule Book (year 2001) Rule4 sect 32 Art 3 Br 64- States: " every player shall be entitled to a spot on " the playing court" etc etc Art 6 a states The guard shall have both feet touching the "playing court" etc etc --- all references to legal Guarding positions refer to the "playing court".
Rule 4 art. 46 Br69 defines the " playing court" as the area on the floor that lies WITHIN the geometrical lines formed by the INSIDE edge of the boundary lines. Therefore it follows that if the defence has one foot outside the boundary he is not in a legal guarding position therefore is in jeopardy if a collision occurs.
What do you think Mark ???
Pistol

The NF has no such restrictions.

Not that I agree that it would make any difference if it did. :)

You go by your own Rules???

Re: Rule Book References-NCAA-2001
 

While I accept most of what you say, your conclusion does not fall from the rules you've stated. The point still remains that even if you don't have legal guarding position, you can still draw a charge. Legal guarding position simply allows the defender the freedom of certain movement at the time of contact and the use of the priniciple of verticality. LGP does not solely make the distinction between block and charge unless the defender was in motion at the time of contact. If in motion without LGP, block. If stationary without LGP, charge. If in motion laterally or away with LGP, charge.

Cameron
I agree with everything you are saying ,however my point is that you cannot have LGP unless you are on the playing court-in this post the defender is not.
Pistol

No, I don't agree for the reasons that Camron stated. I just didn't care to get into it, as it had already been posted. LGP does not have to be established if the player has previously gained his position on the floor.

Your interpretation of the playing floor vs. the floor has no basis for whether this is a charge or not.

Gliac Interpretation
 

Hi Everyone,
I went to the net and contacted the coordinator of College men's basketball at [email protected] for his interpretation. Here is what he sent me :

" Based on what you have outlined Judgement has to enter into your decision. If you feel he went out of bounds to gain an Advantage then the answer is he is Not legal. But, if it is incidental, in other words, we do not want to split hairs, if his foot is on the line or slightly OOB and it is all part of the play and he did not ,with intent,use the OOB to gain an advantage then we do not have a problem".

I tried to contact Hank Nickols on this one but couldn't get through. I must admit I don't know this particular co-ordinator of officials but I do agree with the above reasoning.
This has been a great post and I believe it's made us all think about this unusual situation.
Pistol

Re: Gliac Interpretation
 

OK, I agree with that interpretation, however...if you determine it is an advantage, is that a technical foul for leaving the floor or no call.

Personally I go with a no call or I really sell the Block for not having LGP. If questioned I would give a short, polite explanation ie "you didn't have position you were playing "D" while OOB".
Before I make any call I make sure I saw entire play and not guessing and was refing the Defence as we should all be doing when watching our Competitive match-ups.
I would not go with the more unusual "T" call for playing OOB as it would be a very tough call to sell in a close game or at any time for that matter.. Also the intent to gain an advantage would have to be there as described by the College Coordinator in my last thread.
Pistol