Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ
As a matter of common sense, entitlement to a spot on the floor must be predicated on being on your feet, not lying down, as basketball is played on your feet. Although not identical but similar to the definition of legal guarding position, which requires, in part, two feet on the floor.
|
Incorrect. Legal guarding position, while requiring two feet down initially, grants a lot more freedom to a defender. Short of having two feet down, it is still entirely possible to have a legal position. Aside form LGP, there is no requirement anywhere in the rules requiring feet to be on the floor to be legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ
I also find it problematic to rely on cases that no longer appear in an authoritative publication. How is a new(er) official to know about such an interpretation? Maybe they don't appear because they are no longer correct.
|
It is called experience.
They can't put every possible scenario in the casebook....it would be too long to read in a lifetime. Plus, the casebook isn't "the rule", it is just giving examples of how the rules are applied. If they wanted it to no longer apply, they would typically change the rule and add a new case with the new ruling.
Also, they rotate different things through the casebook periodically to address current issues within the limited space (remember, it is still primarily a printed book) without intending to invalidate rulings just because they are not mentioned. They just choose to drop something that everyone seems to understand or is not as important.
Reference to the old case play:
https://forum.officiating.com/197131-post22.html