From the clarification:
There is an imbalance and an advantage given to the defensive player if he/she is permitted to use an area outside the playing court; especially when the offensive player is not given the same opportunity.
I don't buy this. There is already rule 10-6-2... and it seems contradictory to this new clarification:
A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path no attempt to dribble between two opponents or
between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact.
Now, because the defender has cut off all opportunity by removing a 'reasonable chance ... to go through without contact' plus an inch - because he stepped on the line.... the burden is no longer on the dribbler, it is a block.
From the clarification:
“The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.” The intent of this sub-article was that the defensive player could be in the air and not touching the floor/ground/playing court.
This has always been the rule... no wonder it was considered editorial.
From the clarification:
Understanding that the defensive player must have in-bounds status to maintain legal guarding position should help alleviate any confusion.
This is new. Clarification maybe? editorial? I don;t think so.
From the clarification:
Officials aren't expected to do anything beyond what they were doing previously.Â* Referee the defense and call the play as they see it.Â*ItÂ’s still a judgment call.
Nothing new? NFHS has created a whole new interpretation if not a new rule. I damn sure have to do something different than what I was doing before. Stepping on a line is not quite the same type of judgement as determining a block/charge. Stepping on the line is rather obvious and requires me to do something new concerning the defense.
From the clarification:
The above interpretation is supported in Situation 7 listed on the NFHS Web site.
Yes it is supported in Situation 7. But it is not supported by your rulebook because the editorial changes to rule 4-23 did not include the clarification in 4-23-3b. that the defender must maintain position
on the playing court. the interpretation and clarification is beyond the rule of 4-23-3b. If the intent was the the defender cannot leave the playing court it should have been stated in the rules.
I think it is CoverYourAss(I mean mistakes). And not a very good job.
I can fully agree with
establishing a legal guarding position on the playing court and if it was stated in 4-23-3b. I could also agree with maintaining that position fully on the playing court... but it wasn't.
Can't wait to make the call.
I'm sure to hear some howling... let the monkeys loose!
They should have asked for our help before they published!