Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw3018
Tex, this is the one argument I think does have some merit here - and the only way one could justify calling a block on a stationary player in this situation.
That said, I disagree with that interpretation, and there is no case play that makes the case that a stationary player with a foot on the line is always responsible for contact.
Edit to add: I also want to make the point that your (Texref) case for a block has nothing to do with LGP. That's an important distinction, and why the case play cited most often here doesn't apply here.
|
If the player is not legally "on the playing floor" then how can he not be responsible for contact?
On a side, a to defend somewhat rwest, my interpretation of the case play being brought up, although it applies to LGP, is the same a rwest in that the player being OOB is what the FED is wanting called. IMO, they used that example b/c that is what we will see 9 times out 10 on the floor during a game. But again, I think the point of it is that the player went OOB, thus not only losing his LGP, but his "spot on the playing floor" as required by rule.
If the player lifts the foot up that is OOB, then he is "on the playing floor" and entitled to that protection. If it remains OOB, he is not legally in a spot "on the playing floor."