Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I have said that term here and got ripped for saying "Don't be a rulebook official."
Peace
|
It is a good saying and philosophy, when properly used. When it is used to justify a call in a way that is not supported by the rules, it is nothing more than a canard.
This play is about LGP and nothing else...did the defender have it or not. We can certainly disagree about whether the defender had it or not but to claim it is about anything else (i.e., who created contact, made space, etc.) is nothing more than a way to try to justify a call when you can't justify it by the rules. This is not a 1 in a million situation. This is a bread and butter call. This is not a "rulebook official" situation. It is about basic definitions. What is LGP.
The defender was in the path and had two feet down, there is no question about that....the defender had LGP. The ONLY question is whether he legally moved while maintaining it. Movement is allowed but not if it is toward the opponent at the time of contact. That is pretty basic part of the definition. The player was either moving forward or he wasn't. If so, it is a foul on the defense. There is no other factor to consider. What the offense is doing is irrelevant (unless it is about something other than block/charge). We can certainly disagree about whether he was moving forward or not at the wrong time, but, there are no restrictions on the movement of the player with the ball if the defender is not in LGP. It is the defender's sole responsibility to be in the path legally and to be moving legally if they are moving. That is why we referee the defense. What they do or don't do determines who the foul is on. Disagree about whether the defender is moving forward if you wish, I can accept that. But stick to rules-based reasoning rather than some cliche.