Block / Charge Situation

[Adam]

A player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

So a player w/ the ball touching the line is NOT out of bounds? That is what you are saying with that statement. If a player is touching out of bounds, they are, by definition, out of bounds. What is hard to understand about that?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Texref

So a player w/ the ball touching the line is NOT out of bounds? That is what you are saying with that statement. If a player is touching out of bounds, they are, by definition, out of bounds. What is hard to understand about that?

Not to speak for Snaqs, but there's nothing hard to understand about that.

Where there is disagreement is whether having OOB status prohibits a stationary player from having any legal protection from being charged over. I'm with those who say that's not true. That player may not have legal guarding position, but he doesn't need it because he's stationary.

[Adam]

As much as I'm enjoying this, I'm typing with a splint on my left ring finger and I can't do this as much as I'd like. I've got to bow out for now.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A player with one foot touching the line does not qualify as "off" the playing court.

As far as I can tell, out of bounds and leaving the floor equate exactly. OHBBREF has posted the closest defs we have. Note also the verbiage in this case play:

9.3.3 SITUATION B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained by the double screen. RULING: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.

In other words, as soon as A3 is OOB, which is very clearly defined, he has left the playing floor. However, merely leaving the playing floor is not a violation.

Also, iirc, the stated intent for this rule, from the NFHS's comments on the new rules the year it was enacted (or perhaps from the prior year, NevadaRef is right about the piecemeal way this was done), had to do specifically with the inequity of allowing the defense to use the OOB area to play defense, and the need to require all players to play the game on the playing floor. Ergo their interpretation that the defenders foot on the line ends LGP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So to ask the unpopular question: If the defensive player's foot is on the OOB line, even if he's been there since last Tuesday, did he really "get there first without illegally contacting an opponent."?

Absolutely....in fact, he got there without contacting an opponent at all. This statement in the rule says nothing about what happens after getting to the spot, only about getting to the spot....i.e., you can't push someone out of the way to get to a spot.