Legal Guarding Position

[PGCougar]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

... And this new rule adds something to my responsibilities. Now, not only do I have to judge whether it was good defense or not (which is almost how I base all of my other block/charge calls) but now, I also have to determine the location of the defender. So after I have judged "Yes, that was good defense." I'm coming with a player control foul... "Wait a minute... Did the defender step on the line? Yes he did. All good defense aside, I now have a block." Sorry coach your defender did a good job but he stepped on the line.

If NFHS sticks with their interpretation in the future, I think I would much sooner see it called as an Out of Bounds violation on the defender - offense gets the ball back. No fouls or grievous penalties are meted out, only a small interuption. Still the same responsibilities are incumbent upon me - Ive got to judge the worthiness of the defensive play and the defender's foot position. But to me this seems like and over the top penalty for what could have been excellent defensive play with only a half inch of shoe on the line.

This is perhaps my biggest gripe - great D not only nullified, but insulted with a personal foul rather than a violation of some kind. After a few calls like this, the kids will start playing tentative D around the lines - a BIG advantage to the offense.

If everyone starts calling blocking fouls, then the offensive strategy is to go baseline and sideline even more. Only risk to O is going OOB early with loss of possession. Reward, on the other hand, is both a foul on D and continued possession. Worth gambling some I'd think. Gets me to the bonus quicker and makes the D softer because of the looming foul trouble.

Don't like what I hear so far. Nope, don't like it at all. What's so good about this?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by PGCougar
[/b]

If everyone starts calling blocking fouls, then the offensive strategy is to go baseline and sideline even more. [/B][/QUOTE]Unfortunately,everybody had better be calling blocking fouls. It's the rule, whether we like it or not.

What's worse? Everyone calling it the same way, and therefore all the teams now know what to expect? Or different sets of officials are calling it different ways, and now the teams don't have a clue what to expect?

[altus]

If you look at page 34 of NFHS book, Section 23, art. 3 and art 3. a. It says the defense does not have to have both feet inbounds. At least that is now I read it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by altus
If you look at page 34 of NFHS book, Section 23, art. 3 and art 3. a. It says the defense does not have to have both feet inbounds. At least that is now I read it.

If you go back to page 1 of this thread, take a look at the second post. I posted a link in there to the NFHS website, and an official interpretation on how to call this play. Take a look at Interp#7. You definitely do have to keep both feet inbounds if you want to get a charge called.

Btw,welcome to the Forum.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If everyone starts calling blocking fouls, then the offensive strategy is to go baseline and sideline even more. [/B]

Unfortunately,everybody had better be calling blocking fouls. It's the rule, whether we like it or not.

What's worse? Everyone calling it the same way, and therefore all the teams now know what to expect? Or different sets of officials are calling it different ways, and now the teams don't have a clue what to expect? [/B][/QUOTE]

Let’s face it; the block or charge (B/C) call has to be the most missed call going by referees. At our meeting yesterday it was pointed out that at one camp in NC last summer an experiment took place on B/C. Situations were setup and camp participants were asked to make the call. According to rules guy running the meeting the calls were in the nationhood of 50/50%.

Now we have a clear rule on one part of B/C, “if the foot is on the line or even outside of the line it is a block,” and some are having fits about this. Guess this will be rationalized away just like hand checks and palming.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Unfortunately,everybody had better be calling blocking fouls. It's the rule, whether we like it or not.

What's worse? Everyone calling it the same way, and therefore all the teams now know what to expect? Or different sets of officials are calling it different ways, and now the teams don't have a clue what to expect?

And the complimentary portion of the rule is we better be calling the player control foul when the defender's feet are in bounds. And we should be just as quick/willing to call that, as we are to call the 'foot-out' block.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
[/B]

And the complimentary portion of the rule is we better be calling the player control foul when the defender's feet are in bounds. And we should be just as quick/willing to call that, as we are to call the 'foot-out' block. [/B][/QUOTE]Agree. The idea is to always get the call right. However, being realistic and factoring in human frailities......

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref

I totally agree here with Mark...his interpretation and his rules' citings. If the defense wasn't allowed to move slightly out-of-bounds to keep his legal guarding position, then SECTION 23, ART. 3b should read:

The guard may move laterally or obliquely ON THE PLAYING COURT to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

If this happens in my game, I have either player control or charge.

Indy_Ref: I have some bad news for you. Since you have chosen to agree with me you have forever doomed yourself on this forum.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

I am sorry but I do not understand how this can be a blocking foul on B1. B1 is complying with the rules as stated above. It seems to me that interpretations are being made without the appropriate rules sections being read first. [/B]

I totally agree here with Mark...his interpretation and his rules' citings. If the defense wasn't allowed to move slightly out-of-bounds to keep his legal guarding position, then SECTION 23, ART. 3b should read:

The guard may move laterally or obliquely ON THE PLAYING COURT to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

If this happens in my game, I have either player control or charge. [/B][/QUOTE]


Indy_Ref: I have some bad news for you. Since you have chosen to agree with me you have forever doomed yourself on this forum.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]Lemme make sure that I have this straight so far:
Both of you two, Indy_Ref and MTD Sr., are stating that the posted NFHS interpretation is completely wrong and your own personal interpretation is right? And,furthermore, you will call this play according to your personal interpretation instead of the posted NFHS interpretation? Is that correct?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

And the complimentary portion of the rule is we better be calling the player control foul when the defender's feet are in bounds. And we should be just as quick/willing to call that, as we are to call the 'foot-out' block.

WHY? Each b/c call stands on its own. In your play you could certainly have a block...geeze...nothing has changed....just get it right...

BTW, for all those interested in the various characteristics of the search algorithms used by google, here's a link to a picture returned on the search string "bill the cat". Mind you, I'm posting this for those interested in furthering innovative thought leadership in the field of computer science...I'm sure there's a paper in here somewhere...

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by RecRef

Let’s face it; the block or charge (B/C) call has to be the most missed call going by referees.

IMO the most often missed calls are travel, followed by travel, travel and finally verticality and b/c a distant 5th.

Now we have a clear rule on one part of B/C, “if the foot is on the line or even outside of the line it is a block,” and some are having fits about this. Guess this will be rationalized away just like hand checks and palming.

I hope not, but there are already some who aint gonna call it correctly. Oh well... :shrug:

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I am sorry but I do not understand how this can be a blocking foul on B1. B1 is complying with the rules as stated above. It seems to me that interpretations are being made without the appropriate rules sections being read first.

I have read...and re-read...this new rule. Our association president said this is a BAD rule clarification. I believe it is an incomplete rule clarification.

Again, I say:

If the defense wasn't allowed to move slightly out-of-bounds to keep his legal guarding position, then SECTION 23, ART. 3b should read:

The guard may move laterally or obliquely ON THE PLAYING COURT to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

Therefore, if this happens in my game, I have either player control or charge.

If the NFHS was going to revise section 23 in articles 1, 2a, and 3a, then they should have revised it for article 3b as well to be consistent!

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Indy_Ref: I have some bad news for you. Since you have chosen to agree with me you have forever doomed yourself on this forum.

MTD, Sr.

Oh well Mark, I can live with it. Can you?

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Lemme make sure that I have this straight so far:
Both of you two, Indy_Ref and MTD Sr., are stating that the posted NFHS interpretation is completely wrong and your own personal interpretation is right? And,furthermore, you will call this play according to your personal interpretation instead of the posted NFHS interpretation? Is that correct?

Not quite...what I'm saying...and what I believe Mark is trying to say...is that the NFHS's interpretation in that #7 cannot be explicitly supported by the new rule clarification in section 23.

On a side note: My NCAA assigner said that in the NCAA, as long as a player establishes LGP on the PLAYING COURT, he/she can move ANYWHERE to continue playing defense...even if it means moving out-of-bounds.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Indy_Ref
Again, I say:

If the defense wasn't allowed to move slightly out-of-bounds to keep his legal guarding position, then SECTION 23, ART. 3b should read:

The guard may move laterally or obliquely ON THE PLAYING COURT to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

Therefore, if this happens in my game, I have either player control or charge.

So,you would call a pc foul if the defender had a foot on the line, even though the RULE explicitly states that you can't. That's exactly what I thought that you have been saying.

Good luck!

[Indy_Ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Indy_Ref
Again, I say:

So,you would call a pc foul if the defender had a foot on the line, even though the RULE explicitly states that you can't. That's exactly what I thought that you have been saying.

Good luck!

JR,

You and I must not be reading the same book. I've communicated my position as clearly as I think I can. And, I believe I've clearly pointed out the fallacy in the new rules clarification. You can ref by the interpretation, Mark and I will ref by the rule book.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref
[/B]

You can ref by the interpretation, Mark and I will ref by the rule book.
[/B][/QUOTE]Yes, you can take it to the bank that I will call this play by the interpretation. You and Mark can do anything that you want too. And again, good luck to both of you!