I think this is over complicating a pretty straightforward expected outcome for contact with a defender that has a foot OOB. The result is a block. Any mention, LGP or otherwise, is that the contact is illegal. I will stick with that until I am explicitly told otherwise. If all the salmon are swimming one direction I don't need to be heading downstream.

Sometimes what we think and what is true are very far apart.

There are plenty of people on both sides of this.

I don't see plenty on both sides. I see a vast majority on one.

I'm afraid you're the one confusing guarding and legal guarding position. You can guard without legal guarding position, provided that you are stationary. LGP is only required when you are moving and guarding.

But if you don't like 4-23-1, take it from 4-37-3 which is identical in the important respect: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the *player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

Importantly, review 4-35-2. A player who is touching the line is OOB, not on the court. So no, it doesn't say anywhere that a player on the line isn't entitled to his spot on the court because the player, by rule, isn't on the court.

Bold, when will you see reason. :)

It says the playing court will be marked WITH not that those are INCLUDED as part OF.

You really need to start breaking up a quote when you want to address specific parts for two reasons. 1) It's generally bad form to add or change quoted material (short of removing with ellipses) and 2) it' makes it too difficult to quote you in a reply.

Anyways, you went to the wrong rule for playing court.

1-1 The playing court is just the part inside the lines.

Good discussion so far.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Now back to the other discussion...

I agree, but I don't really see it going anywhere from here. For the purpose of this kind of call I consider the player to still have a right to their spot. If the case play said a player is not entitled to a spot on the court since said player was OOB -- I'd have no issue agreeing with you.

However, since it only talks about LGP there are going to be super rare scenarios where I'll call a PC regardless of whether or not a player has their foot on an OOB line. I've never had one in eight years, and I've only had the opportunity to discuss it with a crew once. I'm not going to have any issue with an official calling this play either way, but in my take of the ruling having your foot on an OOB line doesn't give the other player the right to run you over if you're standing in a spot.

Sorry about the quote thing. I'm at work and my posts are generally as quick(lazy) as possible.

I classify him as still on the playing court.

If a player has stepped on the line in an attempt to go around a screen, do you consider that a violation?

My thought is that if the player is camped out at the spot, I would go with the violation well before any contact happens. If he gets there just in time to try to get a PC call, I'm going block.

In that case, he's likely moving and a block is the right call anyway. :) Let me ask you, though, "If a player has stepped on the line in an attempt to go around a screen, do you consider that a violation?"

Probably wouldn't see it. But by rule it would be a violation.

Yes. Isn't there specifically a case on that?

In practice, that's a low order violation and we're looking either at a different match up or the screener's body position and aren't going to always see it unless they go well OOB. And, like 3 seconds, I try to warn a team if there's no immediate advantage. IME, it doesn't happen two often because offenses don't run their cutters that close to the end line.

I'm not aware of any case play that says stepping on the line qualifies here.

This is the crux of our disagreement, then.