Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
This is a cop out interp. If the NFHS wants to make a point about the kids stepping OOB, rather than just calling a block because the kid had a foot on the line, the official should have to call a T on the defensive player for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. The Block/Charge is then not a foul because the ball is already dead, and the contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant.
|
I agree!If they're off the floor,it shouldn't be a violation. It should be a T for "disconcertion"!
|
Don't you mean "disconcertation"?
I agree with Nevadaref to a degree. I don't think we wants T's in this situation, but the rule should be written to express the way they want it to be called. It wouldn't be hard to write it that way. Making an interpretation that CLEARLY ISN'T WHAT THE RULE says is not the best way to do things. This is where officiating loses it's consistency. ("The NL President told me I could make up my own outside corner. What's that? There is no more NL President, but instead a camera in centerfield grading my calls, but only in some of the parks? ... Which parks?") Lack of consistency is the biggest complaint most of us coaches have.
For seven years I've been teaching my players in our full-court trap to put a foot on the line so the offensive player can't get past. I have yet to run into a T or a block (well, a block that wasn't a block, but was OOB), so I'm going to keep teaching it that way. I'm teaching to the rule book--could you imagine me trying to have my current players re-learn not to step on the line, after I've been stressing it for years, because Mayo and Struckhoff said so? (No disrespect intended.) Change the words in the rule book, and I'll change the way I teach it.