Based on what rule?

Rule Book References-NCAA-2001
 

Well Guys ,You all made me look this up- Congrats!!!!,
In my NCAA Rule Book (year 2001) Rule4 sect 32 Art 3 Br 64- States: " every player shall be entitled to a spot on " the playing court" etc etc Art 6 a states The guard shall have both feet touching the "playing court" etc etc --- all references to legal Guarding positions refer to the "playing court".
Rule 4 art. 46 Br69 defines the " playing court" as the area on the floor that lies WITHIN the geometrical lines formed by the INSIDE edge of the boundary lines. Therefore it follows that if the defence has one foot outside the boundary he is not in a legal guarding position therefore is in jeopardy if a collision occurs.
What do you think Mark ???
Pistol

The NF has no such restrictions.

Not that I agree that it would make any difference if it did. :)

You go by your own Rules???

Re: Rule Book References-NCAA-2001
 

While I accept most of what you say, your conclusion does not fall from the rules you've stated. The point still remains that even if you don't have legal guarding position, you can still draw a charge. Legal guarding position simply allows the defender the freedom of certain movement at the time of contact and the use of the priniciple of verticality. LGP does not solely make the distinction between block and charge unless the defender was in motion at the time of contact. If in motion without LGP, block. If stationary without LGP, charge. If in motion laterally or away with LGP, charge.

Cameron
I agree with everything you are saying ,however my point is that you cannot have LGP unless you are on the playing court-in this post the defender is not.
Pistol

No, I don't agree for the reasons that Camron stated. I just didn't care to get into it, as it had already been posted. LGP does not have to be established if the player has previously gained his position on the floor.

Your interpretation of the playing floor vs. the floor has no basis for whether this is a charge or not.

Gliac Interpretation
 

Hi Everyone,
I went to the net and contacted the coordinator of College men's basketball at [email protected] for his interpretation. Here is what he sent me :

" Based on what you have outlined Judgement has to enter into your decision. If you feel he went out of bounds to gain an Advantage then the answer is he is Not legal. But, if it is incidental, in other words, we do not want to split hairs, if his foot is on the line or slightly OOB and it is all part of the play and he did not ,with intent,use the OOB to gain an advantage then we do not have a problem".

I tried to contact Hank Nickols on this one but couldn't get through. I must admit I don't know this particular co-ordinator of officials but I do agree with the above reasoning.
This has been a great post and I believe it's made us all think about this unusual situation.
Pistol

Re: Gliac Interpretation
 

OK, I agree with that interpretation, however...if you determine it is an advantage, is that a technical foul for leaving the floor or no call.

Personally I go with a no call or I really sell the Block for not having LGP. If questioned I would give a short, polite explanation ie "you didn't have position you were playing "D" while OOB".
Before I make any call I make sure I saw entire play and not guessing and was refing the Defence as we should all be doing when watching our Competitive match-ups.
I would not go with the more unusual "T" call for playing OOB as it would be a very tough call to sell in a close game or at any time for that matter.. Also the intent to gain an advantage would have to be there as described by the College Coordinator in my last thread.
Pistol