Block - Charge Out Of Bounds

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

and the case book, in the section covering GUARDING, says it is a block when contact occurs with a defender who is GUARDING

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

[deecee]

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