Sideline position?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If the defense has one foot out of bounds and one foot in bounds, I and every official I know here has a block on any contact.

Case Book

4.23.3

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......

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.

I really don't understand why this is difficult. If a defensive player is on the line or out of bounds and there is contact it is on the defense.

Not every foul is about legal guarding position. B1 is standing near the bench, getting instructions from his coach. It just so happens he has one foot on the line. Dribbler A1 comes down the sideline and plows into B1.
B1 is stationary. B1 has done nothing wrong. This is not a foul on B1.

[OKREF]

Then it is a violation on B1 for leaving the court under is own voilition?

[Adam]

The rule says B1 is entitled to his spot on the court. He's either entitled to this spot, or he's not on the court. IMO, if one foot on the line isn't enough to call the violation for leaving the court, then a stationary B1 isn't liable for the contact.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule says B1 is entitled to his spot on the court. He's either entitled to this spot, or he's not on the court. IMO, if one foot on the line isn't enough to call the violation for leaving the court, then a stationary B1 isn't liable for the contact.

His spot is not on the court, since by rule his location is not inbounds.

I agree that this position is insufficient for a "leaving the court" violation (9-3-3), but I disagree with your reasoning back to having a spot on the court.

The reason a toe on the line not sufficient for the LTC violation is that touching the boundary alone does not constitute leaving.

It does, however, constitute a player being OOB, and thus denies him a legal position on the court. He is not entitled to that spot, and so liable for any contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by maven

His spot is not on the court, since by rule his location is not inbounds.

I agree that this position is insufficient for a "leaving the court" violation (9-3-3), but I disagree with your reasoning back to having a spot on the court.

The reason a toe on the line not sufficient for the LTC violation is that touching the boundary alone does not constitute leaving.

It does, however, constitute a player being OOB, and thus denies him a legal position on the court. He is not entitled to that spot, and so liable for any contact.

How did he get off of the court if he didn't leave?

[maven]

Originally Posted by Adam

How did he get off of the court if he didn't leave?

I'm not sure what "off of the court" means. He hasn't left the court because he's still mostly on the court, but he is OOB by rule.

Now let's explore the absurdities of your position. You're either calling the LTC violation every time a player has a toenail on the boundary, or you're calling it just when you want to avoid calling a PC foul. Do I have that right?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by maven

I'm not sure what "off of the court" means. He hasn't left the court because he's still mostly on the court, but he is OOB by rule.

Now let's explore the absurdities of your position. You're either calling the LTC violation every time a player has a toenail on the boundary, or you're calling it just when you want to avoid calling a PC foul. Do I have that right?

No you do not have his position right...

He is saying that he will call a violation on the defender before calling a block on the defender for having a foot oob. Since by rule the defender violated before there was any contact.

Now please explain why you think that is absurd...

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule says B1 is entitled to his spot on the court. He's either entitled to this spot, or he's not on the court. IMO, if one foot on the line isn't enough to call the violation for leaving the court, then a stationary B1 isn't liable for the contact.

Coach, I know we had a collision there and both players ended up on the floor. Coach, I have a PC foul on you. Yes coach I know he didn't have both feet on the playing court, and I didn't call a violation on him, but your player ran over a guy who was not legally on the court, so it is a PC.

Good luck trying to sell that one.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Coach, I know we had a collision there and both players ended up on the floor. Coach, I have a PC foul on you. Yes coach I know he didn't have both feet on the playing court, and I didn't call a violation on him, but your player ran over a guy who was not legally on the court, so it is a PC.

Good luck trying to sell that one.

So a player is standing there talking to his coach, and the ball handler lowers his shoulder and drills that player square in the back...and you are calling a block because the defender -who never even saw the ball handler coming at him - had his foot on the sideline???

Good luck selling THAT one.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So a player is standing there talking to his coach, and the ball handler lowers his shoulder and drills that player square in the back...and you are calling a block because the defender -who never even saw the ball handler coming at him - had his foot on the sideline???

Good luck selling THAT one.

Is that player legally on the court?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Is that player legally on the court?

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Coach, I know we had a collision there and both players ended up on the floor. Coach, I have a PC foul on you. Yes coach I know he didn't have both feet on the playing court, and I didn't call a violation on him, but your player ran over a guy who was not legally on the court, so it is a PC.

Good luck trying to sell that one.

'Coach, he's entitled to his spot.'

Easy sell.

Again, he's either on the court, or he left it. I'm done for now.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not every foul is about legal guarding position. B1 is standing near the bench, getting instructions from his coach. It just so happens he has one foot on the line. Dribbler A1 comes down the sideline and plows into B1.
B1 is stationary. B1 has done nothing wrong. This is not a foul on B1.

That is a totally different situation than what the OP is addressing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

That is a totally different situation than what the OP is addressing.

How is it different, by rule?

[OKREF]

4-37-3

Every player is entitled to a spot ion the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

They key phrase is playing court. One foot out of bounds means they have no position on the court.