Once more, the question of a legal guarding position

[Damian]

I know we talked about this earlier. I just got me new rule book. The exact words indicate that the defender must have both feet touching the playing court to establish a legal guarding position. Originally, I thought that it would say that both feet must be completely in the playing court.

So, if I read this right, a defender has established a legal guarding position if one or both feet are on the out of bounds line providing that at least a part of each is in bounds.

How do you plan to call this?

Thanks,
dd

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Damian
I just got me new rule book.

Are you in Ireland?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Are you in Ireland?

Hmmm...I was wondering if he's a pirate....Arggghhhhh, I just got me new rule book matey.

Anywho...Damian, I don't think I see the difference between what it says & what you thought it says. What am I missing?

[TriggerMN]

According to the principle of verticality, the defender can also have legal guarding position with his feet OFF the floor. Maybe "establish" is the key word here though...

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Damian
I know we talked about this earlier. I just got me new rule book. The exact words indicate that the defender must have both feet touching the playing court to establish a legal guarding position. Originally, I thought that it would say that both feet must be completely in the playing court.

So, if I read this right, a defender has established a legal guarding position if one or both feet are on the out of bounds line providing that at least a part of each is in bounds.

How do you plan to call this?

Thanks,
dd

I agree with your reading of this and think it it the most sensible interpretation if we are going to change the rule on LGP with regards to in-bounds/OOB.

However, the NF, in it's always consistent and quality rulewriting, has released a comment/interpretation that is contrary to what is actually written in the rule.

The interpretation says not only that the feet must be entirely inbounds but that it applys to maintaining position in addition to obtaining the LGP.

IMHO, this interpretation is just plain silly. LGP should not depending on absolute location. If a player gets plowed over in the chest, a change of position latarally of 1-2 inches is not what made it happen.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Hmmm...I was wondering if he's a pirate....Arggghhhhh, I just got me new rule book matey.

Dan, it's too late for that. Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day was September 19.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Dan, it's too late for that. Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day was September 19.

Oh...sorry...btw, do ya happen to know when Walk-Like-An-Egyptian Day is?

[rainmaker]

I can't remember hearing anything about it, but I'll ask my 13-year-old, who keeps up to date on these sorts of things. This kid is totally weird. I mean, he decided to change schools this year for 8th grade, because he wanted stiffer academics. Go figure!

[Adam]

I hope you made him shoot 100 free throws for such behavior.

[Damian]

It seems that the spirit of the rule is that according to our regional rep, a legal player is in bounds. If a person is touching the out of bounds line, he is not a legal player and as such cannot establish a legal guarding position.

He kept quizzing me on what is the playing area. I told him I was fine with that, but the word "touching" is where I had a problem.

After much discussion, the interpretation is that they must be in bounds.

[PGCougar]

Originally posted by Damian
... If a person is touching the out of bounds line, he is not a legal player and as such cannot establish a legal guarding position.

Deja vu all over again... Once established, can a player lose his LGP if he were to slide with the ball-handler and unintentionally touch the OOB line in the process of defending? If so, advantage to ball-handler.