We do not call a violation on a player who steps OOB; I don't know of any competent official who does.

We do, however, call a violation on a player who causes <B>the ball</B> to be OOB: 9-3-1. So, how can a defender, who does not have the ball, be called for a violation?

9-3-2 addresses a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, and the committee has clearly stated that this involves intent. The committee has also clearly stated that plays involving momentum, etc. are allowed. So, if you feel the defender has stepped OOB <B>on purpose</B>, then, by all means, call the violation. But, if there is any doubt on intent, then the defender has only lost LGP, as per 4.23.3 B.

I have yet to see any rules backing for the claim that a player with OOB status is always responsible for contact.

I disagree that intent is required here for the violation.
If A2 steps clearly OOB, you have no idea whether he knows he's out or not.
And, frankly, whether he steps on the line or a full foot OOB, his intent is the same. If you think he's intending to skirt around the player by stepping on the line, are you going to call this a violation.
Secondly, lets say the defender (in the OP) purposefully puts his foot on the line to close that gap. Are you going to call the violation?

My point is that if you define the playing court as completely in bounds for purposes of a stationary player being entitled to a spot, then you have to call this violation.

M&M - spot on. Just wanted to add my agreement before I go back to being unproductive for the day...

So a player dribbling the ball who steps on the line is not OOB? That is what I was infereing, sorry I didn't make myself clear.:cool:

How is he not???? Unless the offense INTENTIONALLY or FLAGRANTLY runs them over, the player is not LEGALLY in a spot "on the playing floor?"

Ok, then how would you describe the "intent" of this rule? We all know a player trying to save a ball while falling OOB and ending up there is perfectly acceptable. The player intended to go OOB after making the save, right? Perfectly legal. How about the player who drives hard to the basket for the layup, and knows they aren't going to stop before their momentum carries them OOB after the shot? Again, perfectly legal during normal play.

I'm saying "intent" follows the examples given: player purposely running around a screen, and a player stepping OOB to avoid the 3-sec. call; both involve a direct intent, and both seem to show going completely OOB. A player who is not watching where they are going and steps on the line doesn't seem to follow those examples of intent. Now, if you see the player look down, see they're still in-bounds, and then step on the line to make sure the offensive player can't get by, then that's another story.

Cool. So how can a defender, who does not have the ball, commit a violation?

Simple - by the rule stating he's not.

Which rule is that?

What about the offensive player (without the ball), going around a defender, who steps on the line because there wasn't room to avoid it?

<font size=1>...head...about...to explode...</font size>

You know what. My inner Dan is about to come out and play.

I'm going to lunch.

I may go to the Guiness and Bud Light buffet.

Oy, talk about night and day.

This topic could use a few "Dan-isms" right about now...it gets a little ridiculous after 13 pages. The OP is a specific situation where the defender - who could quite possibly NOT be responsible for intitating the contact - is guilty of a blocking foul due to the fact that they had a foot OOB. Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me.

Rocky, that case play is all about LGP. LGP is lost due to the foot out of bounds; it seems clear to me that this case play does not apply if LGP isn't an issue.