One foot OOB...

[Dan_ref]

OK, try again...

In Mick's post he pointed us to the nfhs changes, where we can find this:


4-23 Clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the “playing court.”


I responded:



Puts an end to the age-old question "can a defensive player stand with 1 foot OOB", doesn't it?


But of course it does no such thing. All the clarification does is tell us where the defender must be to *establish* legal guarding position. We all know that once LGP has been established the defender can move, and nowhere does it say he cannot move OOB with one foot (ignoring the T, which we should). Now, let's say the defender establishes (or thinks he establishes) LGP when having 1 foot OOB and then moves to take a charge without re-establishing LGP (say one foot in bounds, the other not on the floor). Ya gotta go with the block? Maybe it's just me but I don't see how the clarification helps.

[JRutledge]

They create a clarification and do not consider all the possible problems they create by not clarifying ever other situation associated with the change. This happens almost every year. Until I have definite information or ruling in the casebook, I am going back to what I was doing before.

Peace

[RecRef]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
OK, try again...

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how the clarification helps.

I'm with you on this. LGP is just one criteria of block/charge. One that does (should) make the correct call easier. Another one is “entitled to his/her space on the floor.”

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
OK, try again...

In Mick's post he pointed us to the nfhs changes, where we can find this:


4-23 Clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the “playing court.”


I responded:



Puts an end to the age-old question "can a defensive player stand with 1 foot OOB", doesn't it?


But of course it does no such thing. All the clarification does is tell us where the defender must be to *establish* legal guarding position. We all know that once LGP has been established the defender can move, and nowhere does it say he cannot move OOB with one foot (ignoring the T, which we should). Now, let's say the defender establishes (or thinks he establishes) LGP when having 1 foot OOB and then moves to take a charge without re-establishing LGP (say one foot in bounds, the other not on the floor). Ya gotta go with the block? Maybe it's just me but I don't see how the clarification helps.

At first blush, I consider "unauthorized leaving of the court" at second blush I consider "spirit and intent".
YU.P., ...good question.
mick

---

Had a thought. (That's one in a row!)

Can a defender maintain legal guarding position by stepping away from the ball handler toward OOB? Probably not.

[Edited by mick on May 9th, 2003 at 12:26 PM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick


Can a defender maintain legal guarding position by stepping away from the ball handler toward OOB? Probably not.

[Edited by mick on May 9th, 2003 at 12:26 PM]

Why not?

-OR-

Of course they can't!

Depends on your interpretation of the clarification.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Why not?

-OR-

Of course they can't!

Depends on your interpretation of the clarification.

Under the category of "Why not" :

I s'pose, if the dribbler is headed for OOB and the defender maintains....

[jking_94577]

I have been looking through NBA rules for how to establish inbounnds position after you have gone out of bounds but I cannot find anything. Is one foot sufficient with rest of body not touching OOB?