Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Ref in PA
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Ref in PA
We discussed this in our association and determined:
One foot oob = on court
|
Next time you discuss it, hopefully someone will point out that determination is completely wrong as per rule 7-1-1.
Would you have used the same definition if A1 had kept dribbling and then run into B1? Kinda contrary to case book play 4.23.3SitB(a), isn't it?
Methinks your rules interpreter needs someone to interpret the rules for him.
|
I cannot argue that by a strict interpretation of the rule that a violation should be called. Yet 4.23.3 Sitch B is still in the case book. It is the play where the defender has a foot touching oob. The ruling is not a violation on the defender for being oob but a blocking foul. If that is the case, it seems the FED is not using a strict interpretation in this case.
|
That still doesn't change the fact that the case book play sez that the defender is OOB with one foot on the line, or that R7-1-1 is also saying that the defender is OOB with one foot on the line.
Your interpreter is saying however that a player with one foot on a side or end line is in-bounds, and is trying to interpret another rule using that erroneous assumption.
Now, either the NFHS rule and case books are wrong or your interpreter is wrong.
|
There is an asterisk (*) in front of 4.23.3B, indicating (according to the Foreward) that the play either new or modified and "All material has been brought up to date to correlate with the current rules."
This case is definitely different than last year's case book. If you want to say that it is written wrong, fine. But the ruling in the case book here definitely is not consistent with 9-3-2. Assuming this case is correct, the FED seems to have some sort of distinction, otherwise, this would not be a blocking foul on the defender but a violation. And the strict wording of 9-3-2 is "leave the floor" not be OOB.
I guess I am not arguing what OOB means, but what "leave the floor" means. All I put forth was a general rule of thumb our interpreter came up with - based on the rule and existing interpretations. Note that I put forth that interpretation as "on court" and "off court" not "in bounds" and "out of bounds." Hopefully it is not too far of a stretch to believe that "court" could mean "floor".