1st time ever

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

[/I]

I disagree with this statement. What if a stationary player has one foot on the OOB line and there is contact?

Well, in my opinion a stationary player may contact the OOB line and still not be responsible for contact. Others will disagree with that.

It's important to understand when LGP is needed (when a defensive player is moving when contact is made) and when it's not needed (a stationary player).

Think about this...a player is facing away from the ball handler, defending another player. He is standing still. The dribbler runs over him from behind. What do you have?

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Well, in my opinion a stationary player may contact the OOB line and still not be responsible for contact. Others will disagree with that.

People will disagree with you becuase it was a rules change not long ago. If a player does not have both feet on the playing floor, they do not have LGP so any contact after that is on them. This is not an opinion matter, it is a rule.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

People will disagree with you becuase it was a rules change not long ago. If a player does not have both feet on the playing floor, they do not have LGP so any contact after that is on them. This is not an opinion matter, it is a rule.

I know the rule, and I think that's been the rule quite a while - a player cannot have LGP while touching OOB. However, LGP isn't required for a stationary player.

And, how about answering my other question?

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

It's important to understand when LGP is needed (when a defensive player is moving when contact is made) and when it's not needed (a stationary player).

Think about this...a player is facing away from the ball handler, defending another player. He is standing still. The dribbler runs over him from behind. What do you have?

Sounds to me like the player that got ran over does have legal guarding position.

My point in discussing this is that when we as officials, think of things in terms outside of the rulesbook, we don't have as deep an understanding of what we are doing. We need to strive to always think in things within the context and language of the rules.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

Sounds to me like the player that got ran over does have legal guarding position.

My point in discussing this is that when we as officials, think of things in terms outside of the rulesbook, we don't have as deep an understanding of what we are doing. We need to strive to always think in things within the context and language of the rules.

If you want to strive to have a deep understanding and think in the context and language of the rules, tell me how the defender in my scenario - in rule book terms - established Legal Guarding Position on the player with the ball if he never faced him?