Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Again, I don't like the fact that they mention LGP in the case play; it's rediculous. Either give the stationary player his spot, or declare that he did not get there legally since he's OOB. But don't claim the lack of LGP is the issue (not you, the case book).
I say this because, LGP is not required anywhere else for a stationary defender.
|
The reason it mentions LGP is because LGP status is the whole basis for the ruling. The underlying rule that was changed to cover this was the LGP rule....requiring an inbounds status to have LGP. That is it. It is entirely about LGP.
The case play in question doesn't have a stationary defender....so LGP is what it is all about.