|
Okay, I understood what you were saying.
But I think you'll have to admit that you understood what I was saying in my reply concerning successive timeouts on the other board, eh? Just a little paypack. :) |
Quote:
All the cases and clarifications that have been published all have one thing in common...a defender who is actively <em>guarding</em> a dribbler and steps OOB prior to contact. At the time the defender steps OOB LGP is lost and the liberties that come along with having LGP disappear. The rule that covers this is quite clearly in the section titled "Legal Guarding Posistion". It is not in the definition of a foul. Hence, the implications of being OOB have to do with LGP. If LGP is not a factor in the foul call, then being OOB has no bearing. A screener is not subject to the requirements of LGP (e.g. never need to face the opponent) nor does a screener benefit from the liberties of having LGP (e.g. moving laterally at the time of contact). So, the definition of only having LGP while inbounds doesn't not apply to screens. I can create several non-flagrant/non-intentional scenarios that make it quite clear that my point is the corrent and is born of common sense: 1. B1 is stationary and is talking to his coach while barely touching the boundary line (not violating the spirit of leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) A1 running up sideline looking across the court for a possible pass to A2. A1 pancakes B1 and A1 goes to the floor. Can anyone honestly say they'll call a foul on B1? This is clearly a foul on A1. 2. A2 & B2 rebounding collidge such that their is no fould but such the A2 goes OOB, slightly. Before A2 can get back inbounds, B1, trying to get to the ball runs into A2. I don't see a foul on A2 here either. [Edited by Camron Rust on May 8th, 2005 at 09:48 PM] |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:34pm. |