2017-18 NFHS Comments, POE's

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bucky

Foggy memory but I swear that there was a case play specifically regarding a foot OOB and it being an automatic foul on the defense. I will have to go digging.

4.23.3B.
And I don't think anything put out just now invalidates that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

4.23.3B. And I don't think anything put out just now invalidates that.

Thanks Freddy.

4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal
guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot
touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when
A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul
because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding
position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained
and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

4-23-2: To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.
4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18
4. Guarding. ... Once a defensive player obtains legal guarding position by facing an opponent with both feet of the floor inbounds, he/she may move to maintain that position in any direction except toward the offensive player being guarded when contact occurs. The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court and may jump vertically or laterally to maintain the legal position. If contact occurs prior to the offensive player getting head and shoulders passed the defender the responsibility is on the offensive player.

I believe that I've misread the new Point of Emphasis. I took, "The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court" to mean that the defensive player is allowed to be out of bounds (off the playing court), especially since the statement appears one sentence after the statement, "both feet of the floor inbounds".

In reality, thanks to Freddy's post, I now believe that, "The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court", really means that the defensive player may, "jump vertically" (off the playing court).

I'm sorry if I wasted everybody's time.

Originally Posted by Freddy

The phraseology explaining this situation may not be worded ideally ...

Freddy's post (above) makes me feel a little better. Not much, but a little.

And some figured it out a while ago.

Originally Posted by OKREF

... what they are meaning by saying not having to keep both feet on the playing floor means the defense can jump, or be moving and a foot or both would be off the floor ...

Originally Posted by bucky

... there was a case play specifically regarding a foot OOB and it being an automatic foul on the defense.

This is why I like hanging out with people smarter than me. They're always there to fix my mistakes. If any of you guys need a partner next season, give me a call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Almost. I'm just saying there's something unique about IPFs, especially late in games. My experience is that what's observed by the official has to be pretty darn egregious for the assignor or camp clinician to support an IPF. The preferred result, even for the casual bear hug as exemplified in the POE, is typically a common foul and bonus FTs.

So....IMHO, generally speaking there is a disconnect between what the committee wants done and what assignors want done. This puts officials—whom the committee seems to want to blame a paucity in IPFs on—in a tough spot.

That sounds like a local issue, which I am sure we all have to deal with on some level. I get what you are saying, but I think this is not a problem for everyone or even with this rule. But we could say that about other rules as well. Heck we had a state that told us about uniform things and hand-checking and coaching box stuff and had an assignor who basically wanted us to ignore that stuff or said, "In the ........ we are not calling that...." But that was one guy and I over the years have started to slowly not take games for him anymore. I got tired of having to compromise my feelings on rules for a place or conference that was not that spectacular in the first place. Now there are other assignors I work for that have no issues with our enforcing rules and they support you when you do. So this seems to me like something that might be accepted in some areas and others areas not so much.

Peace

[so cal lurker]

As a parent of a varsity player, I'm really curious to see what actually happens with IPFs next year. It seems to me that from time to time there is a focus and more IPFs are called, but then things drift back. The fouls at the end of the game seem so ingrained that it is really hard to change.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I'm really curious to see what actually happens with IPFs next year.

Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, we've had no issues with intentional fouls. We're all pretty much on the same page, even most of the coaches. We all call intentional fouls when there is contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play; when the contact is not a legitimate attempt to play defense (defense grabs the jersey, or pushes from behind, or bear hugs the offensive player); when there is excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball; or when there is contact with a thrower-in.

We (officials, players, coaches, even a few fans) all realize that fouling late in a close game is a legitimate strategy, but the players better avoid the above mentioned acts or the fouled player will get two shots and his team will get the ball back at the site of the foul.