The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Sideline position? Sideline position?
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:05pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
  
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
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?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:43pm
Medium Kahuna
  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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?
__________________
Never trust an atom: they make up everything.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:01pm
Esteemed Participant
  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:10pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springdale, AR
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:15pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
  
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:45pm
Registered User
  
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:48pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
  
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:57pm
Esteemed Forum Member
  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,513
Foot On The Sideline ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:57pm
biz biz is offline
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:00pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:28pm
Do not give a damn!!
  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:26pm
Medium Kahuna
  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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.
__________________
Never trust an atom: they make up everything.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:32pm
Esteemed Participant
  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:33pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
  
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sideline Warning/Sideline Interference Brandon Kincer Football 16 Sat May 23, 2009 09:33am
LGP and the Sideline grunewar Basketball 2 Thu Mar 19, 2009 07:18am
body position for Position B and C tibear Baseball 66 Thu Jun 26, 2008 02:27pm
Windup position - position of pivot foot BigGuy Baseball 3 Thu May 31, 2007 02:21am
Legal Guarding Position on sideline CoachW Basketball 8 Mon Mar 01, 2004 02:54pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27am.

The Official Forum - Archive - Top


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1