Washington State Interpretation Mtg.

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
This is not too far different than what I've been saying all along.

You can say "CLEARLY" all you want and in caps and as a big font if you want to but it is CLEAR to me that it is not as you and several others say.

The rule change, comments and interpretations CLEARLY change the definition of legal guarding position and applications based on legal guarding position. They do not change the definitions of a foul.

This has an effect on the foul that is called if legal guarding posiiton is a factor in determing who has fouled but doesn't automatically declare the foul to be on the defender.

Said another way...if the contact is dependant on having LGP, it will be an automatic block if the defender is touching OOB. If it doesn't depend on LGP, it doesn't matter if the defender is touching OOB or not.

Again, it's not saying the rule is wrong or that it should be ignored...just a different interpretation of what is written and how to use it.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 9th, 2004 at 03:58 PM]

So are you saying that you could have a defender with a foot OOB (by rule not legal guarding position) and call a player control foul on a dribbler for initiating contact?

I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what you are saying.