Screen on an inbounds pass...

[capwsu]

In my opinion, although B3 can legally step OOB following a made basket, once he sets a screen it seems to me like he is not in a position to set a legal screen. Similar to a defensive player trying to take a charge with a foot OOB (and yes I understand the difference that B3 can legally step OOB). I would interpret the play (if B gains a definite advantage or someone goes to the floor) that B3 cannot set a legal screen with a foot OOB.

If anyone here can discredit my interpretation I will be willing to hear it. It is a very interesting scenario I have not thought of before. It would reallly help to see it (from the stands at a camp and be able to listen to the evaluator's thoughts )

[Adam]

Stepping out of bounds prevents a defender from establishing or maintaining Legal Guarding Position (LGP). LGP only gives a player who is moving the potential to take a charge. LGP is not required for a player who is not moving. If B3 gets to that spot first, he is entitled to keep it without being run over by A4.

edited to add: The screening rule (4-40) says nothing about keeping both feet inbounds.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Stepping out of bounds prevents a defender from establishing or maintaining Legal Guarding Position (LGP). LGP only gives a player who is moving the potential to take a charge. LGP is not required for a player who is not moving. If B3 gets to that spot first, he is entitled to keep it without being run over by A4.

edited to add: The screening rule (4-40) says nothing about keeping both feet inbounds.

Snaqwell, you remember the play Kentucky ran to attempt to get a foul called at the end of the game this year in the NCAA's. This play appears to be similar.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

edited to add: The screening rule (4-40) says nothing about keeping both feet inbounds.

From the 2004-05 rule book POE's, when they clarified the rules philosophy....

PLAYERS ON THE COURT "Last year's emphasis ensured that defensive players obtain legal guarding position while on the playing court and not while out of bounds. The same principle is in place for ALL players. Too often, players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example is is an offensive player getting around a screen or defensive player by running out of bounds. That is not legal and gives a tremendous advantage to the offense. Officials must enforce the rules that are already in place. It is a technical foul. Coaches benefit the game by teaching players to play on the court."

That gives you both the rules philosophy and the penalty. All players are supposed to stay in-bounds. If any player...either on offense or defense...gains an advantage by going out of bounds, it was a technical foul in 2004-05. That penalty for that rule was changed in 2005-06 from a technical foul to a violation(R9-3-3). Therefore, if a player sets a screen while standing OOB, and that screen serves it's purpose by making an opponent stop or go around it, the screener has gained an illegal advantage not meant by rule and must be penalized. Call a violation on the screener.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That gives you both the rules philosophy and the penalty. All players are supposed to stay in-bounds.

Except, of course, for players who are allowed to be out of bounds; like say, for example, a teammate of the inbounder. . . ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Except, of course, for players who are allowed to be out of bounds; like say, for example, a teammate of the inbounder. . . ?

Exactly, this player is allowed to go out of bounds. Therefore, it stands to reason he's allowed to be partly out of bounds. You can't call a violation on this player just because he stops half-way and happens, while standing still, to get in the way of a defender.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Exactly, this player is allowed to go out of bounds. Therefore, it stands to reason he's allowed to be partly out of bounds. You can't call a violation on this player just because he stops half-way and happens, while standing still, to get in the way of a defender.

Apples and freaking oranges.

On an unrestricted throw-in, teammates of the thrower are allowed to go OOB on the same endline as part of the throw-in only. If we follow your line of reasoning, it would not be a violation for a player to set a screen with one foot OOB on that endline, but it would be a a violation if the same player set the exact same screen on a sideline or the other endline instead. And on a spot throw-in, it would be a violation for a teammate to set a screen with a foot OOB on any boundary line. Somehow, I really don't think that the purpose and intent of the rule was to legalize one instance only out of eight possible throw-in situations.

Rule 9-3-3 doesn't differentiate between being partially OOB or completely OOB. It simply states that it's a violation to leave the floor for an unauthorized reason. If an illegal advantage was gained, it is an unauthorized reason. And we know from the play where a defender can't have a LGP with one foot on a boundary line that the FED considers a player to be simply OOB. Nowayinhell did the rulesmakers ever intend setting screens OOB to be an authorized reason for that player to go OOB. The POE cited above tells us that.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Apples and freaking oranges.

On an unrestricted throw-in, teammates of the thrower are allowed to go OOB on the same endline as part of the throw-in only.

What!?!?! So you're saying it would be a violation for A2 to run out of bounds during a throw-in to go around a screen set by A3? He's not part of the throw-in in that situation, so by your rationale, it should be a violation.

But when the rule changed from a technical foul to a violation for voluntarily running out of bounds, you (and a lot of other folks) argued that A2 had NOT committed a violation in that situation, precisely because he's allowed to be out of bounds during a throw-in anywhere along the endline.

Here are two quotes from you, from a very long thread from 2005 (when the rule changed) saying that there is no such thing as being illegally out of bounds on the endline during a non-designated spot throw-in:

Originally Posted by JurassicReferee

The condition is that to have a violation, the player must go OOB for an unauthorized reason. There are no unauthorized reasons listed anywhere in the rules that I know of that say any teammate of the thrower can illegally be OOB on the same endline during a non designated-spot throw-in.

Going OOB during normal play and spot throw-ins to gain an advantage is unauthorized. There's rules against it. Going OOB on the same line during a teammate's non designated spot throw-in is always authorized. There are no rules against doing so.

If you stand by what you said then, it seems to me you can't say that the screener with one foot out of bounds during the non-designated spot throw-in is doing anything illegal. Being out of bounds is never unauthorized in that situation.