Sideline position?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Was that player guarding anyone and thus needing to fit that part of the definition of LGP?

He isn't entitled to the spot on the floor. He doesn't have both feet on the playing court.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Adam

Exactly. The rule simply says a player can't have LGP. It says nothing about the spot itself being illegal.

To me, the absurd position is the one that insists 4-37-3 doesn't apply because B1 isn't on the "playing court" but B1 hasn't violated because he somehow hasn't left the court.

You're playing semantics to avoid calling the proper (by rule) blocking foul.
Consider this scenario: A1 is driving to the hoop and sees defender B1 ready to take the charge so he kicks it to A2 in the corner. In his effort to avoid a pass & crash foul, he attempts to side-step B1 but in the process loses his balance and stumbles over the end line. Meanwhile, A2 is nailing a go-ahead 3-pointer. Violation?

If you read all of the case plays concerning leaving for unauthorized reasons, each of those plays are willful acts. Accidentally stepping on an OOB line is not a reason to fishing in the "Leaving the floor for unauthorized reason" pond.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

He isn't entitled to the spot on the floor. He doesn't have both feet on the playing court.

Rule reference? It's not in 4-37. A foot on the line only affects LGP, by rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

You're playing semantics to avoid calling the proper (by rule) blocking foul.
Consider this scenario: A1 is driving to the hoop and sees defender B1 ready to take the charge so he kicks it to A2 in the corner. In his effort to avoid a pass & crash foul, he attempts to side-step B1 but in the process loses his balance and stumbles over the end line. Meanwhile, A2 is nailing a go-ahead 3-pointer. Violation?

If you read all of the case plays concerning leaving for unauthorized reasons, each of those plays are willful acts. Accidentally stepping on an OOB line is not a reason to fishing in the "Leaving the floor for unauthorized reason" pond.

The defender's foot on the line is not an accident. It's taught and coached.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

He isn't entitled to the spot on the floor. He doesn't have both feet on the playing court.

What rule are you using for that statement?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Rule reference? It's not in 4-37. A foot on the line only affects LGP, by rule.

4-37 isn't about LGP. It simply says every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court. If a foot is on the line, where are you? OOB. You have no right to that spot on the floor.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

The defender's foot on the line is not an accident. It's taught and coached.

Coaches don't teach players to have a foot on the sideline while having a discussion with the coach. Coaches used to teach defenders to have a foot on the sideline to insure that a ball handler can't beat the defender up the sideline. Since the rule has changed, coaches shouldn't be teaching that anymore.

[biz]

Originally Posted by Adam

The defender's foot on the line is not an accident. It's taught and coached.

So then you agree that the defender is trying to obtain LGP? In this case the defender is trying to close off the sideline. He is not entitled to place his foot off of the court in an effort to obtain LGP therefore it is a blocking foul.

This isn't that hard people.

Adam, your hypothetical of the player talking to his coach is completely different than a situation where the player is taught to put his/her foot on the sideline.

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by Adam

The defender's foot on the line is not an accident. It's taught and coached.

Bingo, and I'm trying to coach middle schoolers in the full court press the proper (legal) defensive position. Seems like CB 4.23.3 B (a) is exactly what I was looking for, I just couldn't find it in my haste earlier. Thanks for the comments

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

4-37 isn't about LGP. It simply says every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court. If a foot is on the line, where are you? OOB. You have no right to that spot on the floor.

LGP isn't an ussue when the player isn't moving. Show me where a stationary player is required to have LGP.

4-37 applies to stationary players (in a spot), and having both feet in bounds is not a listed requirement. It's only listed in the LGP section, so I don't see how it applies to a stationary player.

[tomegun]

I must have missed something. I thought an interpretation came out several years ago that said if a defender has a foot out of bounds it has to be a block. I think someone stated this and the rationale, but there has been a lot of back and forth about this in this thread. I hope we can all agree that someone running into a player that is talking to his coach is different than someone trying to actively play defense with a foot on the line.

Some people make it seem like we could apply WIF to the offensive player.

[just another ref]

Two things: One is a fact. One is my opinion.

Fact: (already stated) Not all fouls have anything to do with LGP. B1 is standing in the lane, stationary, with his back to A1, on one foot even. Clearly he does not have, and has never had, LGP. A1 drives to the basket and dunks on B1, knocking him to the floor in the process. Foul on B1?

NO

My opinion: Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is not about players who happen to touch the line with one foot when space is not an issue. It is about a player deliberately going out of bounds to reach a spot that he would have otherwise been unable to reach in a timely fashion had he not done so. I don't see myself EVER calling this violation for a player touching the line with one foot, let alone for a player standing still in a wide open space touching the line. This would be right up there with calling 3 seconds on a player stationed in the high post, not involved in the offense, who happens to touch the free throw line with his heel.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I hope we can all agree that someone running into a player that is talking to his coach is different than someone trying to actively play defense with a foot on the line.

And that would be the crux of this whole thread...some people obviously do not see the difference.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And that would be the crux of this whole thread...some people obviously do not see the difference.

Yes I do get that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

The defender's foot on the line is not an accident. It's taught and coached.

It may be, but it is also something I rarely see and would not go with a violation if a player just steps out of bounds.

Peace