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.

I agree!
 

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.

What's to explain? :confused: 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?

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.

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.

Lets muddy the waters a bit.
 

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?

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.

Re: Lets muddy the waters a bit.
 

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.

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.

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.

Re: Lets muddy the waters a bit.
 

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:

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.

Re: Re: Lets muddy the waters a bit.
 

Muddy? :confused:

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]

Aren't the coaches the rulemakers???
 

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!

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

It is a rule I've got to enforce. :)

And another advantage for the offense!
 

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?

Re: And another advantage for the offense!
 

If everyone starts calling blocking fouls, then the offensive strategy is to go baseline and sideline even more. [/B][/QUOTE]Unfortunately,everybody had <b>better</b> 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?

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.

Re: Re: And another advantage for the offense!
 

Unfortunately,everybody had <b>better</b> 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.

Re: Re: And another advantage for the offense!
 

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.

e offense!
 

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 <b>always</b> get the call right. However, being realistic and factoring in human frailities......

Re: I agree!
 

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.

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?

Re: Re: Re: And another advantage for the offense!
 

http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/bill_the_cat.gif

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...

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/...riz-roster.jpg

Re: Re: Re: And another advantage for the offense!
 

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

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

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 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!

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

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.

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

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

Good luck!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Indy_Ref Again, I say: Quote: If the defense <font color=red> wasn't </font> allowed to move slightly out-of-bounds to keep his legal guarding position, then SECTION 23, ART. 3b <font color=red>should</font> read: <font color=red>The guard may move laterally or obliquely ON THE PLAYING COURT to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.</font> Therefore, if this happens in my game, I have either player control or charge. So,you <b>would</b> call a pc foul if the defender had a foot on the line, even though the <b>RULE</b> explicitly states that you <b>can't</b>. 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.

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!

Indy_Ref,
Interpretations overrule every time.
You know that. Quit teasing.
mick

True, but the NF should not post an interpretation that cannot be explicitly supported by the rulebook!

Yabut..., the option of recalling/reprinting all the rulebooks to eliminate/modify a coupla words doesn't make sense when the interpretation route is available. ;)

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. [/B][/QUOTE]One last question,even though we've beaten this to death:

What do think your NCAA assignor would say if you told him that you <b>would not</b> follow his interpretation above because you personally thought that it was wrong?

Can you tell me if there's a similar interpretation concerning the out of bounds defender in the FIBA rules?

Thanks

One last question,even though we've beaten this to death:

What do think your NCAA assignor would say if you told him that you <b>would not</b> follow his interpretation above because you personally thought that it was wrong?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm guessing he would probably say, "Darn, can't fit you into my schedule this season. We'll try again next year."

;)

Yes, but I also noticed a place at the top of the interpretation page that says something like:

Printing errors and corrections...

And after each interpretation situation, it says Ruling...

I would imagine they could correct the printing errors in one of these places?

But, Indy_Ref, wouldn't that make it too easy? :)
mick

Probably...and then this forum might die out...

we don't want that!

I'm guessing he would probably say, "Darn, can't fit you into my schedule this season. We'll try again next year."

[/B][/QUOTE]I completely agree with that.

Gee, I wonder if high school assignors work the same way with refs that won't follow approved rules interpretations? :D

JR,

The only thing missing from your last nana-nana, doo-doo post was...

"When in Rome,..."

By the way, there are very FEW high school assigners here in Indiana. AD's & coaches assign most of the games...and basically run everything in terms of officiating.

Indy, you're right. That was my last post

No there is not.

One last question,even though we've beaten this to death:

What do think your NCAA assignor would say if you told him that you <b>would not</b> follow his interpretation above because you personally thought that it was wrong?



[/B][/QUOTE]
Last I checked. The NCAA rule book and the NFHS rule book are two separate books. In a college game I would use his interpretation. For a HS game I would follow my state interpreters interpretation.

BTW. The college rules committee is almost all coaches where the HS committe is a good mix of coaches and officials.

Hmmm...wonder which one of those facts is a more positive thing?

Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

I don't like the interpretation either but agree with JR that that is the way it should be called if the interpretaion says so. MTD-Here is my attempt to rationalize the interp with the book. S23-A3a says "not required to have either or both feet on the the playing court". It would be jump in logic to now say that you can put your feet down OUTSIDE the playing court. The rule does not say that. All it says is that you are not required to have the feet ON the playing court. i.e. you feet can be in the air.

The rule book is unclear on whether a player can put the feet down outside the playing court.-It does not say if you can or can't. Like it or not but the interpretation clears that up.

Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

Like it or not, the NFHS interpretation cannot be rationalized, nor does the interpretation clear up the situation.

I guess that I will have to send an email to Mary Struckhoff over the weekend and ask her to reconsider the interpretation in Situation 7(a). Two years ago the NFHS issued an interpretation that was incorrect per the rules and the NFHS issued an revised interpretation. We can only hope that the NFHS will see the light (meaning my interpretation) and correct the ruling in Situation 7(a).

Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

My beef is threefold:

1. The rule says it is only require to obtain LGP, not maintain it.
2. The rule says the foot must be touching the player court, not touching <em>only</em> the playing court. A foot that is half in and half out IS touching the playing court.
3. It penalizes good defense.

It could be a good nocall. Did the defender put the opponent at any more of a disadvantage by touching 2" OOB than by being just inside the line?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

The real question is, WWHD? What would Howard do?

(Dan -- is "apple polishing" male-side?)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

Sweety, we invented it - but we call it something different.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

[B]Spell sweetie with an "-i-e-".

And I'll stay female enough to refer to apples rather than...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

Darn! And I was so focussed on not spelling it "sweaty".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

I seem to have detected, by inference from something he said, that he probably wouldn't be focusing on the defenders feet and might not notice that the defender had touched the line.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm
 

Howard, I hope this comes up at the clinic!! I don't want to ref by inference!

Re: Re: Re: Re: And another advantage for the offense!
 

I think I would enjoy 20 page papers if they were on the Arizona Women's Gymnastics team. And to think that I was shunning a career in research . . . . . :p