Legal guarding position question

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

You cannot be "legally" guarding someone with a foot OOB.

Not according to my high school coach. When he was teaching us our full court zone press, he would have us put a foot on the sideline to insure that we didn't give our opponent even a slight chance of dribbling past us up the sideline. I taught the same technique to my middle school team when I coached.

Of course, high school was over forty-five years ago, and I stopped coaching about fifteen years ago, and the rules have changed.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not according to my high school coach. When he was teaching us our full court zone press, he would have us put a foot on the sideline to insure that we didn't give our opponent even a slight chance of dribbling past us up the sideline. I taught the same technique to my middle school team when I coached.

I'm sure this was discussed back when it changed--why the change? This change has never made sense to me--maybe its that bias of having been taught to plant the foot on the line myself.

I just can't figure out what problem the rules committee was trying to solve that made it worth changing the rule. Seems to me they just made the play more complicated and harder to officiate.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

... having been taught to plant the foot on the line myself.

Back in high school we were also taught to stay wide filling the side lanes on a fast break. If we didn't touch the twenty-eight foot hash mark, the coach would have us run killers (suicides) at practice. Now those hash marks are gone. What do player's aim for now?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I'm sure this was discussed back when it changed--why the change? This change has never made sense to me--maybe its that bias of having been taught to plant the foot on the line myself.

I just can't figure out what problem the rules committee was trying to solve that made it worth changing the rule. Seems to me they just made the play more complicated and harder to officiate.

Exactly.

Why was it changed? The rule wasn't actually changed. Someone got on the rules committee and decided that it meant something different than what everyone else had been calling forever. There was no sensible justification for it. And yes, it just makes it harder to officiate for no benefit.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly.

Why was it changed? The rule wasn't actually changed. Someone got on the rules committee and decided that it meant something different than what everyone else had been calling forever. There was no sensible justification for it. And yes, it just makes it harder to officiate for no benefit.

It was an interpretation change or clarification backed by video just like any other interpretation from the NCAA.

I think the video makes the play easier. It is required for NCAA officials to watch the videos. So I do not see the issue here at all. They have justification for not call a foul where before you might not have had that clarification. And officials would try not to call the egregious ones before that anyway.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

Did this change before/after or same time as the violation/technical for intentionally leaving the court change.