Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
cameron, you can't just pick and choose part of the interp and leave the rest out...the fact that the only difference between the two situations is the foot touching OOB or not Touching OOB means that the rest of the situation is the same...and in the the ruling they speak to the reason the contact in A is called a block is that B1 is touching out of bounds, it says nothing about the movement...if the movement were the issue it would be a block in B also, but the ruling says that the guard obtained and maintained legal guarding postition in B....
|
Actually, I'm not picking and choosing parts. I'm just not adding things to it that aren't there. The rule change is clearly dealing with LGP. The situation and interpretation are clearly talking about LGP. The effect is that, in most cases, this will make the contact a block that would have been a charge before. It does not address contact with an OOB opponent that doesn't depend on LGP.
For you to say that part B would be a block if there were movement leads me to believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of LGP and what it or the lack of it implies. Movement would NOT make B a block. To maintain a LGP, a defender must move. There is no other way. It is still a charge/PC if, in part B, B1 is moving as long as it is not towards the dribbler. In this case, if a foot is over the OOB area, I'd suspect the player is moving towards OOB and not towards the dribbler.
The reason part A is a block is because that B1 is touching OOB and does not have LGP. The reason B is not is because B1 has LGP because they are not touching OOB. It hinges on LGP. Being OOB is the reason they don't have LGP.
Again, LGP opens up extra privledges for the defender regarding movement and contact. Without LGP, those same actions become a block....anywhere on the floor. The sideline argument is just that; the player has lost LGP and will get called for a block for actions not allowed without LGP.