What is everyones opinion of the change to establishing legal guarding position? Do you believe it has given an advantage to the offensive team. Is it a block everytime a defensive player has a foot on the boundary line?

Welcome to the board.

Whether we like the way the rule is gonna be interpreted,or not,at least we do know how to call it now. It is a block if the defender's foot is on an OOB line.

This is from a thread below,but I'll re-post it for you.This is from interpretations that were just posted on the NFHS web site: see #7:

http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_interp.htm

Probably Offense
 

After a few whistles for foot on the line, especially if the defender was legal before sliding back with the ball handler, and my guess is the defender starts playing tentative on D near the line. Advantage to offense.

Tentitive or not, this settles a debate I've seen on this board and others since I became an official.

Hmmmmmmmmm
 

We had our season-beginning meeting/clinic yesterday and this rule change was discussed. It was presented to us that once a defender has established legal guarding position, he then has the right to stand OOB while playing defense.

Is this not true? All defenders must have both feet inbounds at all times?

Clarify this for me please.

If contact occurs while the defender is standing with a foot OOB, it's automatically a block.

The link in my initial post above is to the official NFHS website, and #7 is an approved interpretation of the the NFHS rules committee for this year. It was presented to you wrong at your first meeting, unfortunately.

Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

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.

Re: Probably Offense
 

And/or the smart defensive players look down to see if they're standing on the line or not.

Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

Well, I'll throw a guess out there. A player must have both feet on the playing floor to obtain legal guarding position. I'm inferring the comment you quoted above:

is not required to have either or both feet on the PLAYING COURT

as meaning that the player can be off the floor (verticality) or moving (both feet not on the court when moving). I simply don't think the passage you quoted was ever meant to mean a defender standing out of bounds.

Everyone else's mileage may vary. I like the rule. The semicircle under the basket is next :)

Rich

Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

Right -- an overzealous editing job (sorry, Mary).

When they changed article 2 from "on the floor" to "on the playing court", they got what they wanted.

Also changing article 3 (or changing it in the same manner that they changed article 2) muddied the waters -- the interp clarifies the intent.

Unlike Rich, I don't like the rule -- but as I've said before, I don't get a vote.

So is the call a charge when the offensive player tries to go between the defender and the line and is trip up by the defender standing in a normal position? I only raise this question because if I was a coach with the current interpretation I would teach my players to go baseline almost everytime. I think it gives the offense a decided advantage and takes the boundary lines away as another defender.

What I got from the Illinois High School Association is that the premise is that the game is to be played between the lines.

I do not like this interp but I will make the block call everytime and tell the coaches before the game that is the way it has to be called.

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.

Ref: Tweet! (You make the block signal.)
Coach: How can you call that a block? The kid was standing perfectly still! The guy ran over him! Look, he has steamroller marks on his chest!
Ref: Sorry, Coach. His foot was on the baseline.
Coach: (Confused look, since he doesn't know the rule. Shakes his head. Walks away.)

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

As for having a kid look down to make sure they have a legal spot on the court, that just ensures the kid will be positioned to quickly look up as the ball handler goes by for an uncontested basket.

So, if your association meets with coaches before the season to go over rules, you better highlight this one.

If there is less than three feet of space between the boundary line and the defender, the the defender has legal guarding position, the dribbler is responsible for any contact when he tries to slice in between.

Why should a defender be able to more easily cut off a player by putting a foot out of bounds?

It takes skill to cut off a player with both feet inbounds. If I put one foot OOB, I can make sure half my body is over the out-of-bounds area.

Frankly, I was quite serious when I said I would love the semicircle to trickle down to HS play. I know it would codify a myth, but there are a lot of charges that happen because the defender just happens to be under the basket, not because of a great defensive play.

Rich

If there is less than three feet of space between the boundary line and the defender, the the defender has legal guarding position, the dribbler is responsible for any contact when he tries to slice in between. [/B][/QUOTE]

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. I think it makes it more clear for us as officials to have that player step to the line and close off that space which they no longer can do.