Short of time? Draw a foul!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not saying that it is a violation, or a foul, but, I'm also not saying that it is a violation, or a foul. Didn't we just have a very long thread discussing this a few weeks ago? Did we come up with a definitive answer to this. Snaqwells seems very confident in his answer. Do we all agree with him? I'd like to know the right answer.

Confidence is part of my nature and not indicative of my accuracy. That said, in order for a player to get from inbounds to OOB, they have to be allowed to be, at one point, standing with one foot in and one foot out. Unless you're going to call a violation on the following play:

Following a made basket, A1 grabs the ball and heads OOB for the proper endline throwin. A2 then steps OOB as well and receives a pass from A1. A1 then leans forward due to balance and steps over the line before A2 releases the pass for the throwin.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Confidence is part of my nature and not indicative of my accuracy. That said, in order for a player to get from inbounds to OOB, they have to be allowed to be, at one point, standing with one foot in and one foot out. Unless you're going to call a violation on the following play: Following a made basket, A1 grabs the ball and heads OOB for the proper endline throwin. A2 then steps OOB as well and receives a pass from A1. A1 then leans forward due to balance and steps over the line before A2 releases the pass for the throwin.

OK. Let's change it up a little. Team B scores. A1 legally steps out of bounds to make his throwin to A2, however, B1 immediately steals the thowin and is driving along the endline to the basket. Seeing what is about to happen, without delay in returning inbounds, A1 steps inbounds to take the charge. Everything that A1 does in terms of legal guarding position, is 100% legal, by the book, except A1 had one foot on the endline boundary line. Blocking foul on A1 because he had a foot on the boundary line, per a NFHS interpretation a few years ago, or player control foul because A1 was legally out of bounds? Now let's go back to the screen. Is the screen legal if the screener has one foot on the endline boundary line, and I already know that screens have nothing to do with legal guarding position? I honestly don't know the correct answer to this, but would love to be convinced one way, or the other.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

OK. Let's change it up a little. Team B scores. A1 legally steps out of bounds to make his throwin to A2, however, B1 immediately steals the thowin and is driving along the endline to the basket. Seeing what is about to happen, without delay in returning inbounds, A1 steps inbounds to take the charge. Everything that A1 does in terms of legal guarding position, is 100% legal, by the book, except A1 had one foot on the endline boundary line. Blocking foul on A1 because he had a foot on the boundary line, per a NFHS interpretation a few years ago, or player control foul because A1 was legally out of bounds? Now let's go back to the screen. Is the screen legal if the screener has one foot on the endline boundary line, and I already know that screens have nothing to do with legal guarding position? I honestly don't know the correct answer to this, but would love to be convinced one way, or the other.

We've had this (rather long) discussion a little while back when the NFHS ruling came out. First, all the NFHS said was A1 cannot have LGP, because one foot is OOB, or on the line. The discussion was whether A1 could still take a charge, even without LGP. I happen to feel that, even though A1 does not have LGP, they could still draw a charge if they were set and in the spot well before B1 got there. Not having LGP doesn't mean A1 can never draw a charge, only that they are more responsible for contact if it occurs in a close situation.

In your situation, I would say the same applies - even though A1 was legally OOB to begin with, they still do not have LGP when it comes B1. 4-23 (Guarding) specifically mentions in order for the player to obtain intial LGP, both feet must be on the playing court (inbounds). So their status would be no different than a player who was inbounds to start with.

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We've had this (rather long) discussion a little while back when the NFHS ruling came out. First, all the NFHS said was A1 cannot have LGP, because one foot is OOB, or on the line. The discussion was whether A1 could still take a charge, even without LGP. I happen to feel that, even though A1 does not have LGP, they could still draw a charge if they were set and in the spot well before B1 got there. Not having LGP doesn't mean A1 can never draw a charge, only that they are more responsible for contact if it occurs in a close situation.

Have you read case book play 4.23.3SitB(a) lately? That couldn't be more explicit and it says that your premise is wrong.

[Adam]

I'm away from home this week, can someone post the case play?

I don't recall that this case said a stationary defender could be guilty of a block. I recall it mentions a player maintaining LGP (that means moving), and the very specific reasoning for calling the block was the loss of LGP. If LGP is not required, then the case play is not relevant.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Old_School

Have you read case book play 4.23.3SitB(a) lately? That couldn't be more explicit and it says that your premise is wrong.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm away from home this week, can someone post the case play? I don't recall that this case said a stationary defender could be guilty of a block. I recall it mentions a player maintaining LGP (that means moving), and the very specific reasoning for calling the block was the loss of LGP. If LGP is not required, then the case play is not relevant.

4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal
guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot
touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

Bottom line: May a screener, assuming that all the other conditions of a legal screen are met (time, distance, moving opponent, stationary opponent, blind, side, short of contact, etc.), have one foot on a boundary line, and still be considered to have set a legal screen? And, again, I know that legal guarding position has nothing to do with setting a legal screen. Help. Please.

[Adam]

I say yes, but I've been less than perfect lately.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Bottom line: May a screener, assuming that all the other conditions of a legal screen are met (time, distance, moving opponent, stationary opponent, blind, side, short of contact, etc.), have one foot on a boundary line, and still be considered to have set a legal screen? And, again, I know that legal guarding position has nothing to do with setting a legal screen. Help. Please.

We have debated this play more than once. Most recently, I think, on the NFHS Forum. The only time I see that a screen set next to a boundary line would be utilized effectively is on a throw-in after a made basket. In this case it is legal for the offensive player to be out of bounds. So how can it be illegal for him to have one foot out of bounds in the process of setting a screen? Some say it is, as I recall.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old_School

Have you read case book play 4.23.3SitB(a) lately? That couldn't be more explicit and it says that your premise is wrong.

So, are you saying the only time a player can be charged with a player-control foul is when there is contact with a player with LGP?