Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
Completely agree.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
The same should happen in our Fed games if a player taking a charge was standing on the OOB line and two conflicting signals happen. If one officials shares with the other that B was OOB, then by rule you have a block. Now, if the PC official's judgment remains that B was IB, then I think you have to go with the DF.
|
This is an old topic that I hesitate to raise...but....not necessarily. B1 only gives up LGP by being OOB. They don't get automatically pegged with a foul. If they were moving, jumping, etc., they get the foul. If they were there in a manner where LGP was not a factor, they don't necessarily get the foul. The rule ONLY says that a player can't have LGP while OOB...nothing more.
All the case plays addressing the issue make one important implication...that the defender was acvtively guarding the opponent. And by actively guarding, I mean moving in an attempt to maintain position but stepping OOB in the process. The defender gets the foul because the were OOB since the actions they were engaged in required LGP to be legal.
Much like a player stationary in the lane with their back to a dribble/drive who doesn't have LGP, the player who is OOB can still be fouled in the right circumstances; the offensive player can commit a foul that is not a charge, but a push, hold, illegal use of hands, etc. None of those are impacted by LGP and, as a result, have no dependancy on being inbounds or OOB.