See post #9. That's where the FED confirmed that the offense has to stay in-bounds too.

I agree it applies to both offense and defense.

How about looking at this from and advantage/disadvantage perspective? If the screener sets the screen with a foot on the line, they are putting their team at a disadvantage because if contact occurs it must be called a block. I'd say calling this violation would be a game interrupter.

<font size=1>Uh, oh, now you've done it.</font size>

Be gentle, JR. :D

I've been on the forum for a number of years under a different username (and not it wasn't oldschool). I've been in "discussions" with JR before. :D

You look at it exactly the same way that the rule book directs you to. We have to judge whether the player leaving the court did so for an unauthorized reason. Nowayinhell setting a screen OOB is an authorized reason to leave the court imo.

Now, maybe you can edjumacate me a little bit further. What exactly IS a "game interrupter"?:confused: It seems to me that every single time a whistle is blown during a game, that game is interrupted. What makes this particular call a "game interrupter" over all of those other calls? Gee, it wouldn't be because you happened to disagree with that call, would it?:)

Jurassic,

I really don't care about anything else in this thread at this point, except for your comment about going around a screen during the throw-in. I don't care about the player setting the screen (at least until we can agree on the player going around the screen). Just to refresh your memory, here's our previous exchange:

So in this thread, you have said unequivocally that it is a violation for a player on the throw-in team to run out of bounds on the endline to go around a screen during a non-designated spot throw-in.

But in '05, when the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason was changed to a violation, you unequivocally stated that it was NOT a violation for a player on the throw-in team to run out of bounds on the endline to go around a screen during a non-designated spot throw-in. The rationale you gave for that position was that "there are no unauthorized reasons for being out of bounds on the endline during a non-designated spot throw-in".

So which position is correct? The player running around the screen has committed a violation? Or the player has not committed a violation?

A teammate going completely OOB on the same endline during an unrestricted throw-in is legal. If that player goes OOB on any other boundary line though, that would be illegal. A teammate setting a screen while standing an a boundary line is illegal. They are completely different plays imo, as I've said heretofore in this thread.

Screens are supposed to be set in-bounds. The language of the POE that I cited backs that imo.

Absolutely. :D

While I agree with the rest of your statements, I'm not sure I follow this one. In the case play truerookie posted, why isn't the ruling an immediate violation for B2 being OOB for an unauthorized reason?

Good point. I really don't know why it shouldn't be an immediate violation instead of waiting for contact. The FED rationale for all play including LGP is supposedly that the game should be played in-bounds. You...well maybe me...would think that that the same principles would apply to both guarding and screening.

That's just the kind of mean-spirited banter that chases such esteemed members as Dan away from here.

Well, I thought about that as well. I agree with how the committee is addressing the fact that play needs to stay on the court. My thinking is perhaps the difference is between "leaving" the court, and just being OOB. In the examples given in case plays, the player <B>completely</B> leaves the court, and it is done with an obvious intent. Perhaps their thinking in this play is with one foot inbounds, perhaps the player isn't completely aware of thier position? So, with the thought that B2 is not completely OOB, and there may not be an intent to be OOB, the rules committee does not consider that "unauthorized"? Just thinking out loud.

Way to stand up for your former residence.

What do you mean? I bet Dan tries to stay out of Iowa as well? :confused: