Player(s) leaving the court

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. I don't agree that the screen is automatically illegal and a block due to the player's OOB positioning. If you check the rules book, you will see that the requirement to maintain inbounds status is for GUARDING (4-23), not SCREENING (4-40). ....

This one surprised me. Why wouldn't 9-3-3 apply to screening?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This one surprised me. Why wouldn't 9-3-3 apply to screening?

It does. The text of 4-23 does not. So what I am saying is that an violation for leaving the court under 9-3-3 should be called in the situation of a player setting a screen with one foot clearly OOB instead of penalizing this with a blocking foul. Does that make sense to you? Afterall, you are our resident language guy.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It does. The text of 4-23 does not. So what I am saying is that an violation for leaving the court under 9-3-3 should be called in the situation of a player setting a screen with one foot clearly OOB instead of penalizing this with a blocking foul. Does that make sense to you? Afterall, you are our resident language guy.

Yes, it makes sense. And "after all" is two words.

So here's a question for you: on the screen you're calling a 9-3-3 violation, but in a guarding situation you're calling a block. But the guard stepped out before contacting the dribbler, and thus violated 9-3-3 too. Why wouldn't you call a 9-3-3 violation for both?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Yes, it makes sense. And "after all" is two words.

I did not know that. I learned something. Thank you.

Originally Posted by mbyron

So here's a question for you: on the screen you're calling a 9-3-3 violation, but in a guarding situation you're calling a block. But the guard stepped out before contacting the dribbler, and thus violated 9-3-3 too. Why wouldn't you call a 9-3-3 violation for both?

Because the screener is generally positioned OOB for a longer period of time prior to contact occurring than a guard is.

IMO the time lag is an important factor.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because the screener is generally positioned OOB for a longer period of time prior to contact occurring than a guard is.

IMO the time lag is an important factor.

Surprised again, as that principle is not in any of the relevant rules.