Another DVBOA play

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

As far as I know, having "legs extended" "outside the frame" is not one of the things that makes you lose Legal Guarding Position. As Cameron Rust mentioned, contact does not need to occur in the chest/torso to be a charge.

While having a limb extended doesn't make a player lose LGP (contact in the torso can still be a charge regardless of the position of the legs and arms), it would be a block (or maybe a hold) if the contact is on the extended limb.

I don't think, however, in this play that either defender had a limb extended. They were both in a natural stance with their feet roughly shoulder width apart. It is quite possible for an opponent to get their head and shoulders by a fully legal defender and still make contact worthy of a charge.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While having a limb extended doesn't make a player lose LGP (contact in the torso can still be a charge regardless of the position of the legs and arms), it would be a block (or maybe a hold) if the contact is on the extended limb.

So if I am a defensive player standing in the lane like this:

and an offensive player decides to clothesline himself on my arm, what did I do wrong?

Here is what 4-23-1 says: "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg into the path of the opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

Shouldn't we read "extending" in this case as happening once the dribbler has started on his path? As in, the dribbler is blowing past me so I extend my arm into his path to stop him. If my arms are extended before the defenders path intersects mine, how is this not legal?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

...
Shouldn't we read "extending" in this case as happening once the dribbler has started on his path? As in, the dribbler is blowing past me so I extend my arm into his path to stop him. If my arms are extended before the defenders path intersects mine, how is this not legal?

You're making up your own interpretation.

[JRutledge]

I do not recall that the player in question was clotheslined and what I saw was a normal position with their body. Hard to tell anything else, but contact was certainly with the leg of one player and the lower body on the other.

As BNR stated, it sounds like you are making up an interpretation here.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not recall that the player in question was clotheslined and what I saw was a normal position with their body. Hard to tell anything else, but contact was certainly with the leg of one player and the lower body on the other.

The play in question did not involve a clothesline, I posited my own situation.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You're making up your own interpretation.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As BNR stated, it sounds like you are making up an interpretation here.

All interpretations are, by definition, made up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The play in question did not involve a clothesline, I posited my own situation.

All interpretations are, by definition, made up.

No they are not. They are made to illustrate the intent of the rule and how it is to be applied based on the position of the rulesmakers. So not they are not made up. That is why the NF produces a Casebook and a Simplified and Illustrated book to fill in the blanks. People often take an interpretation too far which I feel you are doing here. I know you did not say there was a clothesline, but no one said it was OK to clothesline someone just because they got to a sport first.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

...



All interpretations are, by definition, made up.

Are you trying to learn how to properly adjudicate a play or win a battle of semantics?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are you trying to learn how to properly adjudicate a play or win a battle of semantics?

Why not both?

I'm simply asking if the rule can be read and understood a different way. I read all the case plays involving 4-23-1, and none of them explain whether "extending arm, hip, leg, etc. into the opponents path" means "extending those extremities after the dribblers path takes him into the defenders extremity" or "extending those extremities before the dribblers path takes him into the defenders extremity".

If the first, then the call would be a block/hold/illegal use of hands. If the latter, the call would not penalize a legal defender.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

So if I am a defensive player standing in the lane like this:

and an offensive player decides to clothesline himself on my arm, what did I do wrong?

Here is what 4-23-1 says: "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg into the path of the opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

Shouldn't we read "extending" in this case as happening once the dribbler has started on his path? As in, the dribbler is blowing past me so I extend my arm into his path to stop him. If my arms are extended before the defenders path intersects mine, how is this not legal?

If the contact is on one of the outstretched arms, then, yes, it's a block.

If the contact is in the torso, then it's a charge despite the outstretched arms.

(In both cases assuming other requirements are met)

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the contact is in the torso, then it's a charge despite the outstretched arms.

Are the smiley face boxer shorts part of the torso? Rule quote please.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

My nomination for "Image O' The Month".