Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I am sorry but I do not understand how this can be a blocking foul on B1. B1 is complying with the rules as stated above. It seems to me that interpretations are being made without the appropriate rules sections being read first.
|
I have read...and re-read...this new rule. Our association president said this is a BAD rule clarification. I believe it is an incomplete rule clarification.
Again, I say:
Quote:
If the defense wasn't allowed to move slightly out-of-bounds to keep his legal guarding position, then SECTION 23, ART. 3b should read:
The guard may move laterally or obliquely ON THE PLAYING COURT to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
Therefore, if this happens in my game, I have either player control or charge.
|
If the NFHS was going to revise section 23 in articles 1, 2a, and 3a, then they should have revised it for article 3b as well to be consistent!
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Indy_Ref: I have some bad news for you. Since you have chosen to agree with me you have forever doomed yourself on this forum.
MTD, Sr.
|
Oh well Mark, I can live with it. Can you?
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Lemme make sure that I have this straight so far:
Both of you two, Indy_Ref and MTD Sr., are stating that the posted NFHS interpretation is completely wrong and your own personal interpretation is right? And,furthermore, you will call this play according to your personal interpretation instead of the posted NFHS interpretation? Is that correct?
|
Not quite...what I'm saying...and what I believe Mark is trying to say...is that the NFHS's interpretation in that #7 cannot be explicitly supported by the new rule clarification in section 23.
On a side note: My NCAA assigner said that in the NCAA, as long as a player establishes LGP on the PLAYING COURT, he/she can move ANYWHERE to continue playing defense...even if it means moving out-of-bounds.