Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
This wouldn't be the only case play where the Fed used faulty wording in the "ruling" section to arrive at their desired ruling.
Frankly, I have no idea what they really want here, and I'm going to fall back on the rules.
4-23-1 "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court...."
10-6-7 "A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path...."
I think, for whatever reason, whichever of us is right is not getting through to whichever of us is wrong. And you're right about the fact that this has very little practical effect. I've had more blarges in my career than this call.
|
I think too many people get hung up on what I consider the red herring argument. That is A1 crashes into B2 who does not have LGP on A1. The argument you and others have made is that he doesn't need LGP because a stationary player is not required to have LGP. I agree with you that the foul should be on A1 but for a different reason. B2 does not require LGP on A1.
He does require LGP on A2 (assuming that is who he is guarding). Require is probably to strong a word. He needs LGP if he wants to have the right to move to maintain LGP. If B2 does not have LGP on A2 then if contact occurs, B2 is probably going to be more responsible for it. It depends on the play. I'm not making a blanket statement here. LGP provides some protection to the defender. If a defender does not have LGP this does not give the offense the right to do whatever he wants. The fact that the defender does not have LGP is just one factor we use in determining who the foul is on.
It seems clear to me from the rule book and the case play that the FED does not want the defender playing defense out of bounds.
So Adam, what rule are you going to use if not LGP to call a foul on B2 who is out of bounds when he tried to obtain LGP?