Legal Guarding Position

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Big Dave I agree with you. I have been sitting on the sidelines long enough regarding this rule change. It is my opinion that the NFHS ruling in Situation 7(a) cannot be defended by rule.

Lets see what the rules state and then look at Situation 7(a).


I have used all capital letters to show the change in the rules that was made for this school year. The rules state:

NFHS R4-S23-A2a: To obtain an initial legal guarding position the guard must have both feet touching the PLAYING COURT.

NFHS R4-S23-A3a: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained the guard is not required to have either or both feet on the PLAYING COURT or continue facing the opponent.

NFHS R4-S23-A3b: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained the guard my move laterally or obliquely to maintain postion, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

The NFHS Rules Interpretation for Siituation 7(a) states:

SITUATION 7(a): B1 obtains a legal guarding position on A1, who is dribbling the ball near the sideline. There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line.n the air over the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: A blocking foul shall be called on B1. B1 may not be touching out of bounds. (R4-S23-A2,3; R4-S35-A1)


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 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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by flsh224
If the defender is 2 1/2 foot from the sideline and the offensive player goes through there and trips on the defender have fun explaining that to the coach of the offensive team.

What's to explain? The defender was standing there, the dribbler tried to force his way through a spot and tripped. I'm not bailing him out.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

What's to explain? The defender was standing there, the dribbler tried to force his way through a spot and tripped. I'm not bailing him out.

What if the defender's legs are set wider than a normal stance?

[Dan_ref]

I guess I don't understand what the big deal is. Except for the clarification nothing has changed regarding how this play is called. The rule is reworded poorly but it's clear from the new case play the defender needs be inbounds to both initiate and maintain legal guarding position - and Indy, I can't imagine how you can refuse to abide by the new fed rule in your HS games.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
What if the defender's legs are set wider than a normal stance?

Well then we have a different play. I thought we were talking about a player who was legally 2.5 feet from the boundary line.

If he's sticking his legs out, then that's a different kettle of fish.

[Damian]

Now, suppose the defensive player has stepped out on the line, then picks his foot up. So, now one foot is in bounds, and the other is in the air.

Forget legal guarding position for a minute since that will not apply. But, the defensive player has the right to that spot since he was there first, then an offenisve player goes into him, it should be on the offense.

Now take it one step further. The defense has a legal guarding position, moves laterally, oops he steps on the line, so he raises his out of bounds foot, then BAM. How will you determine who the foul is on?

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
...and Indy, I can't imagine how you can refuse to abide by the new fed rule in your HS games.

Dan,

I defended my position in my post...and I thought I was quite clear on why I believe in my interpretation. Again, if the Fed wanted to ALWAYS make a defensive player stay inbounds to keep legal guarding position, I believe they should have stated in section 23, article 3b:

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 it was so important to add PLAYING COURT to article 2a and article 3a, then they should have added it to article 3b as well. Had they done this, then I believe we could interpret it the way some of you have. (I agree they have muddled the rule!) Their interpretation on their website is fine. However, there is NO rule to explicitly support it in its totality...as stated in a previous post.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Damian

Now take it one step further. The defense has a legal guarding position, moves laterally, oops he steps on the line, so he raises his out of bounds foot, then BAM. How will you determine who the foul is on?

That's what makes the whole thing MUDDY!! In my book, it's a charge/PC every time! The defense should be rewarded for good defense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Well then we have a different play. I thought we were talking about a player who was legally 2.5 feet from the boundary line.

If he's sticking his legs out, then that's a different kettle of fish.

The post that you replied to just said that the offensive player "tripped" on the defender. That was all the info in it.The point I was trying to make is that nothing has really changed on this play(as Slappy pointed out) except for when the defender's foot is on an OOB line. In other words,you can't say "3 feet from OOB line" is always a charge,or contact with the leg is also always a charge. The only time that you have a "one size fits all" call is when the contact occurs when the defender is standing OOB.Then it's always a block.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref

Dan,

I defended my position in my post...and I thought I was quite clear on why I believe in my interpretation. Again, if the Fed wanted to ALWAYS make a defensive player stay inbounds to keep legal guarding position, I believe they should have stated in section 23, article 3b:

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 it was so important to add PLAYING COURT to article 2a and article 3a, then they should have added it to article 3b as well. Had they done this, then I believe we could interpret it the way some of you have. (I agree they have muddled the rule!) Their interpretation on their website is fine. However, there is NO rule to explicitly support it in its totality...as stated in a previous post.

We agree that the wording is bad. But the new case play clearly makes it plain that the intent is that the defender MUST stay in bounds to maintain LGP. I'm sure sometime in the next few weeks the HS coaches in your area will hear this loud and clear & adjust accordingly. Aint right that you take it upon yourself to call it your own way.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Damian
...oops he steps on the line, so he raises his out of bounds foot, then BAM. How will you determine who the foul is on?

Once he steps OOB oops (as you said ) he has lost LGP and must re-establish it inbounds. In your play (no LGP on torso to torso contact with ball carrier) oops! I got a block.

Seems pretty simple to me. :shrug:

[RecRef]

Originally posted by theboys
This is an interpretation designed to make a referee's job more difficult. I mean, imagine yourself explaining this to an uninformed howler during a hotly contested game.

Snip

Coaches regularly teach kids to cut off the base line, which probably means kids regularly step on the OB line while doing so.

In Virginia coach that fall under the jurisdiction of the VHSL, which is to say all public schools, have to attend the same state sponsored rules meeting as we do.


It is because coaches taught the move to the OB line that the rule was formulated. This was specifically stated at our rules meeting last night so the coaches know it is their fault.

My 2 cents is that I like the rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref

That's what makes the whole thing MUDDY!! In my book, it's a charge/PC every time! The defense should be rewarded for good defense.

Muddy?

How can this possibly be muddy? Guys, go back and read interpretation #7 from the link that I posted at the start of this thread. The exact same play above is covered,and it tells you exactly how to call it- whether you personally happen to like it or not. It's now a block, because the defensive player is now completely inbounds(one foot being inbounds and one foot in the air).

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 21st, 2003 at 12:04 PM]

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by RecRef

In Virginia coach that fall under the jurisdiction of the VHSL, which is to say all public schools, have to attend the same state sponsored rules meeting as we do.


It is because coaches taught the move to the OB line that the rule was formulated. This was specifically stated at our rules meeting last night so the coaches know it is their fault.

My 2 cents is that I like the rule.

But isn't it the coaches that make the rules?

Do I like this change... I'm still undecided. The situation/interpretation makes it pretty cut and dried. Is it supported by the rules...? I'm with Mark D; I don't think it completely is supported (I wouldn't have arrived at the interpretation based upon the changes made in Rule 4-23)

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.

And of course I can see it happening right in front of the coach (who is looking down the line) as I transition from backcourt to frontcourt (half way between the center circle and the sideline).

Will this rule change require a change in mechanics? The call might be easier for the Lead because he (she, sorry Juulie and others) is already out of bounds and can readily see the line. Whereas the Trail is on the PLAYING COURT (nearly all of the time) and would generally need to look through the players to see a foot position on the line.

I'm convincing myself not to like this rule... somebody stop me!

[DownTownTonyBrown]

And of course ... whether I like it or not is irrelevant.

It is a rule I've got to enforce.