Sideline position?

[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...

[abbott20]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

So it would be a LTC violation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

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.

[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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

It's absurd because he's calling a violation depending on whether there was a foul.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by maven

It's absurd because he's calling a violation depending on whether there was a foul.

And you are calling a foul depending on whether there was a violation.

So is that not also absurd?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by maven

It's absurd because he's calling a violation depending on whether there was a foul.

No, what's absurd is your interpretation of my position.

[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?