Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
Cameron,
I respectfully disagree with your take on the interpretation at the NHFS website. It says nothing about B1 moving in situation 7A, it only says that they have 1 foot on the boundary line, and it is therefore to be called a block. If the movement were the key here then in situation B where the player only has a foot "over" the boundary line but in the air, then neither A or B would be a block. The interpretation is specifically referring to having a foot on the line, and the interpretation is that this is to be called a block if seen, no ifs ands or buts...with that said, I do think that intentionally contacting an opponent ie running his @$$ is maybe another can of worms, like a flagrant personal foul....which might bring us to a false double foul  wooooo hoooooooooo.. coaches everywhere will love us right Hawkscoach ;p 
|
Let's look at Sit #7.
B1
obtains a legal guarding position on A1, who is dribbling the ball near the sideline.
There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line, or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso.
To me, to obtain LGP, B1 must have been inbounds (according to the new rule). For B1 to stay in the path of A1 and ultimately touch OOB, that implies B1 was moving. If not, how did he get OOB?
The rule change does not address the definition of a foul. It only changes the definition of LGP. If the same action were to occur in the middle of the floor without LGP, it should be the same call.
Of course, in most practical cases, B1 will be moving and playing active defense so that the call will be a block. I'm just wanting to avoid reading more into this than is really there.
As you mentioned about deliberately running over an opponent...this can't be the desire or intention of anyone to make a defender open for a free hit when they are OOB.