2020-21 Basketball Rule Interpretations ...

[Camron Rust]

Who wrote these? They certainly leave a lot to be desired for what are supposed to be clarifying rulings.

#2, in the last sentence says "If either foot is moved" when it should say "either foot is lifted". In all other facets of the travel rule, a moved foot is one that is lifted and returned to the floor.

#4. Says the number can't be above the number, but that it has to be in the apex of the neckline. Isn't apex of the neckline above the number. Likewise for the shoulder area. It can be above the number but it has to be in a specific place above the number.

EDIT: Removed an item relating to #5 since they've actually corrected what I was complaining about.


#9. No problem with what it says, but I wish they'd change the rule about delaying the return inbounds to be a violation. It will almost never get calls as a T.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

SITUATION 9: A1, while being defended, is driving from near the free-throw line extended toward the end line. A1 continues toward the end line and pulls up and goes airborne just before the boundary line with his/her momentum carrying him/her out of bounds. Just as A1 goes airborne, he/she passes off to a teammate across the lane and lands out of bounds. RULING: No violation. A player’s momentum, after performing legal actions on the court that results in taking him/her out of bounds is not a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. However, if A1 purposely or deceitfully delays returning after legally being out of bounds to gain an advantage, a player technical foul would be assessed. (4-4-3, 9-3-3, 10-4-2)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#9. No problem with what it says, but I wish they'd change the rule about delaying the return inbounds to be a violation. It will almost never get calls as a T.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My last NFHS rule change suggestion was near the end of last season:

9-3-4 A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
Penalty: The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation.
Rationale: Many officials don't call players for purposely delaying returning in bounds.

This would have made the penalty for a player purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds the same as the penalty for a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

This suggestion made its way through my IAABO local and state board, and my state interscholastic sports governing body, and was passed through to the final agenda items of the NFHS Rules Committee, but it wasn't accepted.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Who wrote these? They certainly leave a lot to be desired for what are supposed to be clarifying rulings.

#2, in the last sentence says "If either foot is moved" when it should say "either foot is lifted". In all other facets of the travel rule, a moved foot is one that is lifted and returned to the floor.

#4. Says the number can't be above the number, but that it has to be in the apex of the neckline. Isn't apex of the neckline above the number. Likewise for the shoulder area. It can be above the number but it has to be in a specific place above the number.

#5. Not actually supported by rule even though that is the commonly used interpretation. The rule actually says that you can't OBTAIN LGP with a foot OOB. It says nothing about maintaining LGP. This situation says that the defender obtained LGP and then stepped OOB. If that is what they want, the rule should be changed to say that.

#9. No problem with what it says, but I wish they'd change the rule about delaying the return inbounds to be a violation. It will almost never get calls as a T.

Aren't you directly tied to the NF? Can you find out who wrote these? And again this is why it is clear that are not officials on the commitee that either use their voice or participate in the material put out. These interpretations often cause confusion or have wording that is problematic. When I have said that you and others try to tell us there is nothing to see here. But then I see posts like this that contradict parts of rules or wording in these interpretations. And what really is funny how these will be used, but never are in the Casebooks or Simplified and Illustrated books which care interepretations.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

SITUATION 5: 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 (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line, or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), a blocking foul shall be called on B1. B1 may not be touching out of bounds. In (b), a player-control foul shall be called on A1; B1 had established and maintained a legal guarding position. (4-23-2, 4-23-3, 4-35-1)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#5. Not actually supported by rule even though that is the commonly used interpretation. The rule actually says that you can't OBTAIN LGP with a foot OOB. It says nothing about maintaining LGP. This situation says that the defender obtained LGP and then stepped OOB. If that is what they want, the rule should be changed to say that.

4-23-2: To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be
airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, -
provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical
plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent

4-35-1: The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where
the person is touching the floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out-of-bounds.
b. In the frontcourt or backcourt.
c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-point field-goal line.

Doesn't the guard still have to have inbound status while maintaining legal guarding position? See 4-23-3-A.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be
airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.

Doesn't the guard still have to have inbound status while maintaining legal guarding position? See 4-23-3-A.

Well, I stand corrected. That phrase wasn't always there. It was added somewhere along the way.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Who wrote these? They certainly leave a lot to be desired for what are supposed to be clarifying rulings.

#2, in the last sentence says "If either foot is moved" when it should say "either foot is lifted". In all other facets of the travel rule, a moved foot is one that is lifted and returned to the floor.

#4. Says the number can't be above the number, but that it has to be in the apex of the neckline. Isn't apex of the neckline above the number. Likewise for the shoulder area. It can be above the number but it has to be in a specific place above the number.

#5. Not actually supported by rule even though that is the commonly used interpretation. The rule actually says that you can't OBTAIN LGP with a foot OOB. It says nothing about maintaining LGP. This situation says that the defender obtained LGP and then stepped OOB. If that is what they want, the rule should be changed to say that.

#9. No problem with what it says, but I wish they'd change the rule about delaying the return inbounds to be a violation. It will almost never get calls as a T.

I have some disagreement with this post. BillyMac already posted the correction to #5, so I won't bother with that.

#2 A standing player in possesion of the ball may always jump into the air without violating. It is the returning to the floor which is the issue, so I am fine with the language used by the NFHS. As you note, the NFHS is using the word "moved" to signify a change in location of the foot from one spot on the floor to another. The lifting is not illegal by itself, whether it is done with both feet or only one.

#4 Uniform regulation are somewhat confusing. This play ruling does about the best job that it can of clarifying that a school logo may be in the neckline of the jersey at the apex (central point), while it cannot otherwise be on the front of the jersey above the number. So the point is that if the logo is anywhere else than the one location specified by this play ruling, the jersey is illegal.

#9 What we must decide is if the current penalty for delaying one's return from out of bounds is too harsh. Perhaps, but perhaps not. This kind of deceit isn't something which we want in the game and a harsh penalty therefore serves as a deterent to attempting such deception. The lighter penalty may get called more, but if not it makes trying this trickery far more worth it because even if you do get caught and penalized, the punishment is merely a single loss of possession.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I have some disagreement with this post. BillyMac already posted the correction to #5, so I won't bother with that.

#2 A standing player in possesion of the ball may always jump into the air without violating. It is the returning to the floor which is the issue, so I am fine with the language used by the NFHS. As you note, the NFHS is using the word "moved" to signify a change in location of the foot from one spot on the floor to another. The lifting is not illegal by itself, whether it is done with both feet or only one.

#4 Uniform regulation are somewhat confusing. This play ruling does about the best job that it can of clarifying that a school logo may be in the neckline of the jersey at the apex (central point), while it cannot otherwise be on the front of the jersey above the number. So the point is that if the logo is anywhere else than the one location specified by this play ruling, the jersey is illegal.

#9 What we must decide is if the current penalty for delaying one's return from out of bounds is too harsh. Perhaps, but perhaps not. This kind of deceit isn't something which we want in the game and a harsh penalty therefore serves as a deterent to attempting such deception. The lighter penalty may get called more, but if not it makes trying this trickery far more worth it because even if you do get caught and penalized, the punishment is merely a single loss of possession.

#2: Read the case again. It is illegal if either foot is lifted prior to starting a dribble...that is a travel.

Rule 4-4-b: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

#3. No, it doesn't do the best job it can. It could have been worded way better and it wouldn't have been difficult. It is badly worded situations like this that leads to people penalizing things that are legal.

Below is my quickly created suggestion for an alternative. My additions, with wording taken straight form the rule book, are in red):

SITUATION 4: Team A has its school logo placed above the number but below the base of the neckline on the jersey. The official rules the jersey illegal. RULING: The official is correct. The logo may be placed in the apex of the neckline on the front of the jersey or in the upper shoulder area on the front of the jersey or a corresponding area on the back or in the side insert. It may not be placed in the space above the number but below the base of the neckline. The name of the logo may be placed above the number, not the picture. (3-4-4a)

#9. How are these plays really any different than a player leaving the court without authorization. They're essentially the same act. They should have the same penalty.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

SITUATION 2: A1 is moving and catches the ball on one foot, then jumps and lands on both feet. The player then lifts the left foot and then returns it to the floor before releasing the ball to start a dribble. The official allows play to continue. RULING: The official should rule a travel on A1. When landing on one foot and then jumping and landing on both feet, the player does not have a pivot foot. If either foot is moved before releasing the ball to start a dribble, it is a travel. (4-44-2a, 3

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#2, in the last sentence says "If either foot is moved" when it should say "either foot is lifted". In all other facets of the travel rule, a moved foot is one that is lifted and returned to the floor.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

#2 A standing player in possession of the ball may always jump into the air without violating. It is the returning to the floor which is the issue,

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#2: Read the case again. It is illegal if either foot is lifted prior to starting a dribble...that is a travel.

Cameron Rust and Nevadaref aren't too far apart. Nevadaref's assertion that "a standing player in possession of the ball may always jump into the air" may be generally true. However, as Cameron Rust pointed out, the actual interpretation reads "before releasing the ball to start a dribble", which is illegal by rule (Rule 4-4-b: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble).

The conflict seems to stem from the split second between the ball being released and the ball hitting the floor and then touched again as a dribble. If the player in the interpretation had decided to pass or shoot with said foot off the floor instead of dribbling (ball hits floor and is touched again), under those conditions (pass, shot) I believe that these two conditions would all be legal.

But none of those two things happened, the interpretation only says "dribble" which is clearly illegal by Rule 4-4-b.

Of course in a real game, under real game conditions (and with this interpretation), not too many officials would be that picky (and patient) interpreting what a "dribble" is by waiting for the ball to be released, hit the floor, and be touched a second time (remember the call is travelling not an illegal (double) dribble). In 1964 United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously stated “I know it (pornography) when I see it”. Likewise, most experienced officials know the release and start of a dribble when they "see it". Most experienced officials also know a release to pass or shoot when they "see it".

Just be careful with this (pass, shot) on a written exam.

Note that David landed simultaneously on both feet, so either foot may be the pivot foot. Venus de Milo's right foot is on the floor, I think that her left foot may be missing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#2: Read the case again. It is illegal if either foot is lifted prior to starting a dribble...that is a travel.

Sorry that it took me so long to reply to this, but I forgot about this discussion because the thread turned into Billymac and Raymond going back and forth.

In this particular case, what you write above is not correct. The reason is that the first foot which is lifted is not the pivot, so a dribble may be started without causing a traveling violation.

PIVOT
4.33 SITUATION: A1 catches the ball while both feet are off the floor, alights on one foot, jumps off that foot and comes to a stop with both feet simultaneously hitting the floor. A1 then lifts one foot and throws for a goal or passes. RULING: Legal. A1 may lift either foot in passing or trying for a goal in this situation. However, A1 may not pivot; that is, A1 may not lift one foot from the floor and then step (touch the floor) with that foot before the ball has left the hand(s). By rule, a pivot means a player “steps once or more than once with the same foot...” (4-44-2a(3); 4-44-4a)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry that it took me so long to reply to this, but I forgot about this discussion because the thread turned into Billymac and Raymond going back and forth.

In this particular case, what you write above is not correct. The reason is that the first foot which is lifted is not the pivot, so a dribble may be started without causing a traveling violation.

PIVOT
4.33 SITUATION: A1 catches the ball while both feet are off the floor, alights on one foot, jumps off that foot and comes to a stop with both feet simultaneously hitting the floor. A1 then lifts one foot and throws for a goal or passes. RULING: Legal. A1 may lift either foot in passing or trying for a goal in this situation. However, A1 may not pivot; that is, A1 may not lift one foot from the floor and then step (touch the floor) with that foot before the ball has left the hand(s). By rule, a pivot means a player “steps once or more than once with the same foot...” (4-44-2a(3); 4-44-4a)

Rule 4-44-4b says otherwise:
After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rule 4-44-4b says otherwise:
After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble.

Excellent point, sir! I agree that we must go with that direct and clear rule despite any interpretations or case play rulings which may be unclear or contradict it.

Point to Camron.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree that we must go with that direct and clear rule despite any interpretations or case play rulings which may be unclear or contradict it.

I usually go the other way.

Casebook plays and annual interpretations, especially those that are up to date (deleted, new, edited, changed, due to rule changes), tend to involve very specific circumstances with very specific rulings that tend to be quite clear.

I often view some casebook plays and annual interpretations as "exceptions" to the rules as written, some regarding "odd" situations not specifically covered by the more generic written rules.

And yes, casebook plays and annual interpretations sometimes conflict with the rules as written.

Stupid NFHS.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry that it took me so long to reply to this, but I forgot about this discussion because the thread turned into Billymac and Raymond going back and forth.

In this particular case, what you write above is not correct. The reason is that the first foot which is lifted is not the pivot, so a dribble may be started without causing a traveling violation.

PIVOT
4.33 SITUATION: A1 catches the ball while both feet are off the floor, alights on one foot, jumps off that foot and comes to a stop with both feet simultaneously hitting the floor. A1 then lifts one foot and throws for a goal or passes. RULING: Legal. A1 may lift either foot in passing or trying for a goal in this situation. However, A1 may not pivot; that is, A1 may not lift one foot from the floor and then step (touch the floor) with that foot before the ball has left the hand(s). By rule, a pivot means a player “steps once or more than once with the same foot...” (4-44-2a(3); 4-44-4a)

The case does not address the question of lifting the foot before starting a dribble.

It says that lift and:

a) pass -- legal
b) shoot -- legal
c) re-place on the floor -- illegal
d) dribble -- not addressed (but I agree it's illegal)
e) call TO -- not addressed (but it's legal)

Under MOST circumstances, a player has one pivot foot (restricted movement) and one free foot (movement mostly unrestricted). When a player completes this type of jump stop (jump off one foot, land on both simultaneously), the movement of both feet is restricted. When a player executes the other type of jump stop (gather in the air and land on both feet simultaneously), the movement of both is unrestricted (at least at first, until one of them is moved)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BillyMac and Raymond going back and forth.

Lively, professional, spirited, respectful, educational, polite debate.