Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Coach,unfortunately you are no longer teaching to the rulebook.This rule has now been defined to the interpretation above. I would bet Chuck's left one that there will be an interpration to that effect going up on the NFHS website soon. I'd check with your local officials' group on this one,if I was you. Might save you some grief when the season opens.It's always better to find out how your officials are gonna call it,rather than listening to any of us on this Forum. JMHO.
|
My understanding is that the 2003-2004 rule book says that legal guarding position must be obtained INITIALLY by having both feet on the floor IN BOUNDS, and that after obtaining this, the player may move and maintain the legal guarding position. It does not say that the player must have both feet on the floor IN BOUNDS AT THE TIME CONTACT OCCURS. That's the interpretation being reported here, but that's clearly not what the rule book says.
Granted, technically my defender is in violation of the rule that prohibits leaving the court. (But again, I've never ever seen that called, so I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.) However, if the rule prohibiting the leaving of the court for an unauthorized reason was INTENDED for a situation like this, why would Mayo/Struckhoff come up with the interpretation reported above? If the unauthorized leaving rule was intended for situations like this, wouldn't the Mayo/Struckhoff interpretation be that a technical should be called instead of a blocking foul?
[Edited by A Pennsylvania Coach on Jul 31st, 2003 at 12:47 PM]