Legal Position Revisited

rockyroad · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 12, 2003, 02:07pm

Somebody help me out here - without starting a new argument or more e-mails to anyone at the National Federation...didn't the Fed issue a clarification that said a defender standing with a foot oob is not in legal guarding position - and if there is a crash it will be a block???? Someone please remind me of the website that had that link, please...the reason: had our HS State Rules Clinic the other day, and the lady running it said that both feet had to be inbounds to establish initial legal guarding position, but after that the foot could be oob and still have a player control foul called...I went "HMMMMMM, that doesn't sound right", but can't find the clarification site...help, please.

Barry C. Morris · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 12, 2003, 02:14pm

http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_interp.htm

Rocky,

Here's the link. It is situation 7.

mick · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 12, 2003, 02:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad
Somebody help me out here - without starting a new argument or more e-mails to anyone at the National Federation...didn't the Fed issue a clarification that said a defender standing with a foot oob is not in legal guarding position - and if there is a crash it will be a block???? Someone please remind me of the website that had that link, please...the reason: had our HS State Rules Clinic the other day, and the lady running it said that both feet had to be inbounds to establish initial legal guarding position, but after that the foot could be oob and still have a player control foul called...I went "HMMMMMM, that doesn't sound right", but can't find the clarification site...help, please.

Yes, dj,
The trouble is there are no dates.
I was notified of a change on this site after the "clarification" was posted.
Chronology is important here and we don't have it.
mick

http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_rules_change.htm

Danvrapp · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 12, 2003, 02:15pm

Check out http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_rules_change.htm

Look under 'Major Editorial Changes'

rockyroad · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 12, 2003, 02:43pm

Thanks guys - one more question: the presenter was wrong - right? She said it could still be a PC foul if the defender is oob, but the NFHS says it has to be a block - right?

Camron Rust · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 12, 2003, 05:05pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad
Thanks guys - one more question: the presenter was wrong - right? She said it could still be a PC foul if the defender is oob, but the NFHS says it has to be a block - right?

As much as I don't like it, she's wrong regarding LGP and OOB.

She's actually right if you only use the rule and case book. However, once the clarification and interpretation are added it makes it a block. Hence the confusion. Rule books clearly says one thing while the I & C say something much more.

That said, being OOB doesn't make the defender fair game for contact. It is still possible to have a PC foul when the defender has OOB status. The defender may no longer have LGP but LGP only permits them to be moving/jumping at the time of a collision. If the dribbler shoves them with a hand or forearm, LGP has nothing to do with the call and the dribbler can be called for the PC foul. If the defender is completley stationary, they may not have LGP but can still draw a PC on a collision. This is no different than the play where A1 fakes a shot, then B5 turns around waiting for the rebound while A1 drives down the lane crashing into B5's back. B5 never had LGP but also did not commit a block by not having LGP.