Sideline position?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Yes it is..."every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court." If you have one foot OOB you are OOB, and not on the playing court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes it is..."every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court." If you have one foot OOB you are OOB, and not on the playing court.

Then you should call the violation, as this is surely not an authorized reason.

If you can't call the violation when done intentionally (most of the time it is), then you can't say B1 isn't on the playing court.

This issue really needs to be clarified, and I admit if it is, it may well be clarified to your position.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Then you should call the violation, as this is surely not an authorized reason.

If you can't call the violation when done intentionally (most of the time it is), then you can't say B1 isn't on the playing court.

This issue really needs to be clarified, and I admit if it is, it may well be clarified to your position.

I can say he isn't on the playing court. His foot on the line puts him OOB , which means he isn't on the playing court. I would say the playing court is inbounds.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Why is 4-37 part of this discussion, it applies to rebounding?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why is 4-37 part of this discussion, it applies to rebounding?

It does say everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor. Maybe no one is entitled to a spot.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It does say everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor. Maybe no one is entitled to a spot.

10-6 ART. 11

A player shall adhere to the rules pertaining to illegal contact, including but not limited to, guarding as in 4-23, rebounding as in 4-37, screening as in 4-40, and verticality as in 4-45.