Sideline position?
 

Looking for rule pertaining to defensive positioning on this play: A1 is advancing ball up sideline in backcourt. B1 takes a position (established) in front of A1, but with one foot on out of bounds line. Contact then occurs when A1 attempts to go around B1, but does not have enough room without going out of bounds himself. Is it legal or not for B1 to have the one foot oob?

B1's position is not legal, making him liable for a foul for any contact. Being inbounds is a condition of both acquiring and maintaining LGP. 4-23-2, 3

Here we go again. B1 does not need LGP if he isn't moving, except maybe in this one case play.

I've got him legal if he's stationary. Others have a block regardless.

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.

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

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.

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

How is it different, by rule?

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.

Not really.

Fair enough. I just know how I will call this and how I have called this, and I have never had a problem from a coach when I explained it to him.

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.

Like I said, unless you're willing to call the violation for leaving the court, I don't think you can say B1 has left the playing court. IOW, you either have a defensive violation (thus an immediate dead ball), or a pc.

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

How can you call a player control on a player when the defensive player is not legally on the court?

That's my point. If he's left the court, it's a violation, no foul either way. If he hasn't left the court, and he's not moving, it'd either pc or nothing.

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? :p

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?

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.

When did you notice he (B1) left the court, before or after the contact?

There's contact, you're going to call the block.

You call leaving the court when someone gains an advantage, as in receiving a pass for a shot or a drive to the basket.

JMO.

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

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.

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

So is that not also absurd?

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

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.

'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.

Is that player legally on the court?

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.

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.

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

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

What rule are you using for that statement?

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.

Foot On The Sideline ???
 

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.

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.

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:)

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.

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. :D

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.

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

Yes I do get that.:D

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

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.

In the OP he was.

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.

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.

Yep...but the thread took a left turn after that. Try to keep up, will ya? :p

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.

And I don't think you should. I don't understand, however, how it's a block if he hasn't left the court, though.

The original post had the defender with a foot on the out of bounds line. That buy rule and interpretation is a block if there is a block charge call to be made. I will admit I did not read carefully through ever debate or issue.

Peace

Frankly, I could just as easily take either side in this debate.

Anybody Seen Chuck Elias ???
 

Hey, something isn't right here.....you and I agree! :)

I think it's important to remember that there are situations when players may legally leave the floor without violating. One example would be a player sprinting towards the end line to retrieve a ball headed out of bounds - throwing it back in bounds, then letting his momentum carry him OOB. He's fine if he immediately reenters. No violation.

Perhaps the player in the OP situation is OOB for a non violating reason.

If so, and there's contact, it's "on him" and not the offensive player regardless of his right to a spot on the court.

Sigh...if he is oob and attempts to draw a charge, then it's "on him". If he is just standing there looking at the ball he just attempted to save and the offensive player mows him down you can not seriously say you are going to put that "on him".

Too many people are taking one small statement in the rule book and trying to apply it to everything...it doesn't work that way.

So B1 and A1 are chasing a loose ball, B1 leaps and taps the ball before it can go out of bounds, then comes down straddling the sideline. A1 continues his pursuit, but knocks B1 to the floor.

You call this a blocking foul on B1?