No one is disputing that. It's all that other crap you're laying on us.

The rule being discussed is about the definition of LGP, not the definition of a blocking foul. The case play being referenced is about LGP, not about the definition of blocking fouls.

The only way you get that case to mean anything different than what I'm saying is if you take it out of context.

If you want to start doing that, you're going to have a lot of interesting results.

If they had wanted it to mean as you seem to suggest, they would have changed the definition of a blocking foul, not the definition of LGP.

Yep, that's what I thought. All opinion, no rule reference, case plays or interps to support your "read between the lines" opinion.

No. The rule reference IS the context. You might not understand it, but context is part of every rule and case.

I understand the rule perfectly.

What I don't understand is:

"It isn't intended to apply to a player who was near OOB and happens to be on the line when a player comes along and runs into them."

Where can I read a rule, case play or interpretation that supports this?

Does that player neat LGP? Yes or no? If the legality of what they are doing doesn't depend on LGP, then this rule doesn't apply.

This is what it boils down to, IMO. The rule says a player can't have LGP while a foot is OOB. Why is it being applied to players who don't require LGP?

Once again, you failed to answer the question.

"It isn't intended to apply to a player who was near OOB and happens to be on the line when a player comes along and runs into them."

Where can I read a rule, case play or interpretation that supports this?

You need to find a rule that says it is illegal.

The standard is that if it is not illegal, it is legal.

Nowhere in the rule book says it is a foul to be contacted while OOB. It only says you don't have LGP while OOB...and the case book, in the section covering GUARDING, says it is a block when contact occurs with a defender who is GUARDING (because it is in the section defining guarding) while OOB....and the reason is that they don't have LGP.

Now show me a case or rule that says a rule on guarding applies to non-guarding situations.

Pretty blanket statement that if you are guarding then no matter what it is a foul on the defender. Why SHOULD a non-defender get any special treatment, LGP or NOT?

The non-defender doesn't get special treatment. That is the point. They are more limited, in general. They can't be moving and they don't have versatility. But, if they are not doing any of those things, they don't need LGP. It is no different than a non-guarding player elsewhere on the court....such as a player with their back to the drive who is just standing there.

The purpose of that interpretation was to address the play where a defensive guard was sliding over to cut off a baseline drive by placing one foot OOB to cut off any chance of the drive getting by.

So you are giving players on the court and off the court the same rights?