High school rule: player entitled to his space on the floor

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... That's why they call me second hand Rose (Barbra Streisand, 1965)



Camron Rust: I believe you and agree with you. I only know of this "third hand", from Lindsey Atkinson, the NFHS basketball rules editor, to one of the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, to me.

What's the origin of your statement?

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1044943

The origin of my statement was the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in which it was said.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The origin of my statement was the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in which it was said.

Matches Lindsey Atkinson's (NFHS basketball rules editor) statement that I heard via the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters at the IAABO 2021 Fall Seminar (with over 200 local, or state, IAABO interpreters participating).

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The NFHS has clearly said that all cases remain valid even after removal from the book unless stated otherwise. The removal of cases without comment is only due to space limitations and not because the case is invalid. Any cases that are to be changed will have a new case indicating the change.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The following was just announced this weekend at the IAABO Fall Seminar ... To prepare for the IAABO Fall Seminar, the four IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, one of whom has served on the most recent NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, and who will continue to serve on the committee, met with Lindsey Atkinson, the new NFHS rules editor for basketball, on September 23, 2021 ... Ms. Atkinson stated that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS. She also stated that usual reason for still valid casebook plays to be dropped is due to page limitations, when a new caseplay goes in, one usually has to come out.

Lindsey Atkinson's statement needs a wider audience to gain any traction.

Her getting in the ear of only several dozen officials isn't very helpful.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Does this also apply to a screener or defender who has their legs extended way outside their natural base? They are entitled to all space from one foot to the other?

It wouldn't apply to a screener, as we now bring in LSP (legal screening position) I heart acronyms.
Screener must stay within vertical plane and stance approx shoulder width.

Defender though, I'd say yes. As long as they have first established LGP, then they can maintain LP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tnolan

It wouldn't apply to a screener, as we now bring in LSP (legal screening position) I heart acronyms.
Screener must stay within vertical plane and stance approx shoulder width.

Defender though, I'd say yes. As long as they have first established LGP, then they can maintain LP.

No. A defender's position is generally determined by the position his/her body, not the position of his/her feet (definition of guarding says putting the body in the path...and by body, they mean torso). Extending a foot into the path of an opponent negates LGP (by rule) if contact occurs on the extended foot.

The difference between a player lying down after falling and a defender extending a leg is that the fallen player's legs are presumably in line with his/her torso. The case cited above says that the horizontal player will have committed a foul if they raise a leg to create contact, essentially extending the leg outside his/her body frame.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. A defender's position is generally determined by the position his/her body, not the position of his/her feet (definition of guarding says putting the body in the path...and by body, they mean torso). Extending a foot into the path of an opponent negates LGP (by rule) if contact occurs on the extended foot.

The difference between a player lying down after falling and a defender extending a leg is that the fallen player's legs are presumably in line with his/her torso. The case cited above says that the horizontal player will have committed a foul if they raise a leg to create contact, essentially extending the leg outside his/her body frame.

Okay. Well an extended leg into the path is an obvious foul if that's where the contact is. I was thinking more about OIC on a screener torso with their legs outside plane vs. OIC on a defender torso with their legs outside plane, as well as a defender sliding to move outside their plane but not into the path.

And essentially a "prone player foul" is only a foul...if it's actually a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tnolan

Okay. Well an extended leg into the path is an obvious foul if that's where the contact is. I was thinking more about OIC on a screener torso with their legs outside plane vs. OIC on a defender torso with their legs outside plane, as well as a defender sliding to move outside their plane but not into the path.

And essentially a "prone player foul" is only a foul...if it's actually a foul.

Screener or defender, it doesn't really matter. Contact in the torso is contact in the torso regardless of any extended limb. Even though the screening rules are not as explicitly written in that regard, it is the same principle. They never intended to make a screen illegal due to an extended leg if there is no contact on that extended leg any more than it is with a defender doing the same.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Screener or defender, it doesn't really matter. Contact in the torso is contact in the torso regardless of any extended limb. Even though the screening rules are not as explicitly written in that regard, it is the same principle. They never intended to make a screen illegal due to an extended leg if there is no contact on that extended leg any more than it is with a defender doing the same.

We've stretched outside of the OP but this is good discussion.
The last few posts have got me thinking more about that part you mentioned there in bold.

If A1 is setting a screen with their legs well outside of their normal stance, and B1 makes 'legal' torso contact with A1...it shouldn't really matter where A1's legs are as they really don't have any impact on the contact made vs. if A1 was setting the screen with his legs inside shoulder width
I'm not trying to pick apart the rules/case book on what is/isn't a foul or what we've come to know as fouls...but it's just interesting to me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tnolan

We've stretched outside of the OP but this is good discussion.
The last few posts have got me thinking more about that part you mentioned there in bold.

If A1 is setting a screen with their legs well outside of their normal stance, and B1 makes 'legal' torso contact with A1...it shouldn't really matter where A1's legs are as they really don't have any impact on the contact made vs. if A1 was setting the screen with his legs inside shoulder width
I'm not trying to pick apart the rules/case book on what is/isn't a foul or what we've come to know as fouls...but it's just interesting to me.

Then it is a legal screen. I haven't seen anyone argue that it isn't. I have the same principle for screeners and defenders, if their legs are outside their base but contact is to their torso, they were legal.

What I have a problem with is contact occurring to the legs of a screener/defender with their legs outside of their base and officials deeming the screener/defender to be legal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Then it is a legal screen. I haven't seen anyone argue that it isn't. I have the same principle for screeners and defenders, if their legs are outside their base but contact is to their torso, they were legal.

I have, several times. There are many that read the statement that says a screeners legs must be no more shoulder width for the screen to be legal as an absolute regardless of where or how contact occurs.