2017-18 NFHS Comments, POE's

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I didn't know that a defensive player is not required to keep both feet on the playing court after moving to maintain position after obtaining legal guarding position with both feet of the floor inbounds. I always thought that if contact was made by a defensive player having at least one foot out of bounds, that it was always a blocking foul.

I've been schooled.

I would think you're half right, if upon trying to establish a LGP, one foot is OOB, it would be a foul on the defense. I also think that maybe 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, since it was mentioned earlier.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I also think that maybe 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, since it was mentioned earlier.

That's exactly what they mean. When the "having to have both feet inbounds" rule first came out about twenty years ago, we were taught (locally, probably in error) that if contact was made by a defensive player having at least one foot out of bounds (before, or after, obtaining legal guarding position), that it was always a blocking foul.

I remember when the rule first came out, how upset many of us were because most of us, as players (in the good old days of our youth) were taught by our coaches to not give up any path inbounds along the sideline (especially while in a pressing situation), even if it meant being in a position out of bounds.

According to the Point of Emphasis, while defenders on the sideline can't "set up" out of bounds, they can legally move laterally out of bounds.

Maybe it's always been like that, but, locally, we've never been taught it that way.

I've been calling this wrong for about twenty years. Luckily, I've probably only called it incorrectly, two, or three times. Usually, a foul by the defense, in this specific situation, seldom involves the defender touching the sideline. They usually do something else wrong, like moving toward the dribbler, or sticking out a leg.

[JRutledge]

You really been having an issue with this Billy? I cannot think of one time since they made it clear you cannot being out of bounds where I had to even have a call that related to this rule specifically. This is just so rare that players even try to defend while clearly out of bounds. I do not even remember it being taught much at all.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You really been having an issue with this Billy? I cannot think of one time since they made it clear you cannot being out of bounds where I had to even have a call that related to this rule specifically. This is just so rare that players even try to defend while clearly out of bounds. I do not even remember it being taught much at all.

As indicated in my post, I agree with you that plays involving legal guarding position and the out of bounds sideline are very rare. Issues? Not until I noticed the wording in this year's Point of Emphasis. As far as being taught the rule, we were only taught once, when the rule first came point, and back then, it was made clear to us that if contact with a sideline dribbler (especially in a pressing trapping situation) was made by a defensive player having at least one foot out of bounds (before, or after, obtaining legal guarding position), that it was always a blocking foul.

After the rule regarding legal guarding position and out of bounds came out twenty years ago, has it always been clearly worded by the NFHS that it's been legal to "move" out of bounds after being "set" inbounds? Or is this year's Point of Emphasis the first time we've seen such wording?