good call, mick!

How do we get the "news" out to all the coaches, players and parents?

Better question: how do we get the "news" out to all the officials who still refuse to call it this way?

Care to mention any names? Oooo, catty remark. Do I lose points for that?

<I>That reminds me of a story:</I>

Whadya call a dog with no legs?
Dun't matter. ...He ain't gonna come anyway. :)

Whadya call a dog with no legs?



[/B][/QUOTE]If you throw him in your pool, you can call him "Bob"!

Put him on the doorstep and call him Mat.

Put him 90 feet from home plate, and call him "First Base".

I sent Mary Struckhoff an email on Sunday night detailing why the Ruling in Situation 7(a) was incorrect. As of last night I had not received a response from her nor had the clarification been posted on the NFHS website.

This morning I received a response from Mary with her telling to read the clarification on the NFHS website.

At this moment, I still am of the opinion that the clarification cannot be supported by rule, but have not started an official reply to Mary. Right now I can only say that I am appalled by the logic used in the clarification and that the NFHS intends to change the rules in 2004-05 to support its clarification.

Here is the problem once again.
 

They are going have this clarification that no one will read, no one will understand and that the rulebook will not support. And when a tough play comes up, no one but the NF and a couple of officials will even be aware that there is this clarification. I can see a coach reading this years rulebook to argue or make an issue with and official over this ruling, without ever reading the website.

Peace

Re: Here is the problem once again.
 

In actuality, how often does this sitch come up? I mean how many of you out there in dot-com land have had to use this, or expect to in the next season? I'm not saying it should be ignored, I'm just not sure it's such a huge deal as we are making it out to be.

In my experience, if a coach questions a call and I say, "Yes, coach, I'm sure -- the NFHS put up an official interp in their rulings for the new season" they know they dont have a clue and they drop it. The good ones ask for details so they can improve their coaching. In these cases, Jeff, you are absolutely right about how important it is to have both rules knowledge AND presence. The rules knowledge gets the call correct, and the presence sells it.

But really, how many times is it going to be an issue?

If you throw him in your pool, you can call him "Bob"! [/B][/QUOTE]

OK, I'll take the bait...

Put him on the wall and call him Art.

OK, I'll take the bait...

Put him on the wall and call him Art.
[/B][/QUOTE]Put him on the hook and call him "Bait"?

Amen!

Re: Re: Here is the problem once again.
 

...A coupla times more than never, ... maybe.

Everyone will still not see this.
 

I agree that it is not going to be an issue that much, but all it takes is one big game, and it will become an issue. It is very possible that an assignor will not have the NF website to support this, when the rulebook says something else. I can see a coach going ballistic over whether a player's foot was on the line or not, something we are not trained to look at in the first place. I just think it is a bad rule in the first place and it is made worse by the way the NF has chosen to tell us. Everyone is not computer literate.

Peace

Re: Everyone will still not see this.
 

Amen...again!!!

Would you folks be complaining so vehemently if the clarification went the way you wanted?

I don't remember this ever happening before, but then again I never looked down at the feet when calling a block/charge either :)

Rich

Let go - PLEASE!!!
 

This absolutely boggles my mind. We had a very interesting discussion of this rule. It could be read in one of two ways. You could either literally interpretat the rule and piece together individual lines in a specific way that led one direction. Alternatively, you could look at spirit of the rule in light of the problem that NFHS appeared to be trying to fix and choose to believe that they failed to reword a line of the rules in order to make their intent perfectly clear. Because of this, there was legitimate argument over what NFHS intended - that's as it should be.

Now NFHS has clarified, and explained in very clear terms how they want it called and why they want it called this way. And their interpretation and support for that interpretation is extremely logical. How can we still be fighting about this, and why?

Better start doing it now!

If you throw him in your pool, you can call him "Bob"! [/B][/QUOTE]

If he's got only 2 legs call him Eileen. Unless he's from (your favorite Asian country inserted here) then he's Irene.

Re: Let go - PLEASE!!!
 

Amen!

What's needed now is uniformity in calling it- like it or not.

If he's got only 2 legs call him Eileen. Unless he's from (your favorite Asian country inserted here) then he's Irene.

[/B][/QUOTE]I think we may have a winner! :D

I still won't explicitly look down before the crash. It's just like calling a batter out for having a foot out of the box -- you just have to have a feel for where it is and look down after the contact.

Rich

Reading the interp, I think this is where NFHS is on this anyway. They just want to clarify that you can't straddle the boundary or put a foot on the line to take away the line. You don't need to be on the lookout for the foot barely grazing the line issue, but if the defense has been trained to straddle or put a foot on the line (usually on the trapping press), you will notice it and you should call it.

Hang the dog and one of his littermates over your window and call them "Curt 'n Rod".

I will tell you how.
 

Because every official, coach and player are never going to see the website. Because when there is a dispute over this situation, it is much harder to refer to a website than it will be to refer to the rulebook. If you do not believe that, then look at all the trouble the NF caused when making Post Scrimmage Kick enforcement in football. The NF did not have all their publications on the same page and all it did was cause some confusion as to what to do. This is the same thing. Because 98% of the officials and coaches that I will come in contact with, will never see anything from the website. And in a hotly contested game, no one is going to go right to the website to prove their point. I do not know about anyone here, but I will not have a computer handy. I will have a rulebook in my bag, but that is about it. And we do call more block/charge situations in a game and a season than I ever did calling PSK during the football season.

Peace

It really isn't that hard
 

Not everybody has to read this clarification on-line. Local leadership (rules interpreters, local boards, etc.) should be able to look it up and get this essential information to their refs.

We are about to start a new season. A new rule is going into effect, people got a bit confused, NF clarified their intent. The rule is now so incredibly straightforward it isn't hard to tell folks what it means. It doesn't require a laptop or an internet connection - just remember that defenders have to stay on the court. How hard is it to get that message out to refs?

Re: I will tell you how.
 

Sure, we call more block / charge situations -- but how many involve a foot that may or may not be near / on the line?

And, you could print out the interps, and the clarification and keep them tucked neatly inside your rules book.

Re: It really isn't that hard
 

That might work in your state, but that does not necessarily work in ours. Once the rules meeting are over, there is no "statewide" updates. At least one that the coaches ever see. We cannot get the coaches to read a simple rulebook, how are we going to get them to understand the many interpretations on the NF website? Coaches here spend more time learning what the rules are by what the officials did the night before. And I have come to the conclusion that they are lying half the time anyway.

The officials are the last of my concern. The coaches are the ones that are going to "pitch a b!t@h" we used to say. At least all officials are required by the IHSA By-laws have to attend a meeting, every year no matter what. Coaches on the other hand, only have to have a representative to a IHSA Rules Meeting. So many times the Head Varsity coach will not attend the meetings at all and they are the ones that run the program. They will send a Freshman Assistant Coach (who does not know there is a rulebook to begin with) try to report back the fine details of the new rule. I am sure something will get lost in the translation. Just like it did when a coach went ballistic on my about what his player could do after a made basket. That coach was clueless then, I am sure he and others will be clueless about this new rule as well.

Peace

Mark my words.
 

Of course I could. But that would only work if I even wanted a coach in my locker room after any game to discuss any situation during a game. I do not know about you, but even with the best intentions I would rather pass based on how well that has worked in the past. ;)

Better yet, you will hear about a coach that will make a big issue over a call that does not go their way. And I will bet that some assignor, somewhere will get a call or a letter about "how this official does not know the rule," and will reference the NF 2003-2004 Rulebook. If it happen to me over a rule that a coach did not understand what he wrote, it will happen on this situation.

Peace

Now I understand your arguments. It's not in the rulebook so you can't explain it to coaches without a laptop. But printing it and putting it in your rulebook won't work either, because you don't want to pull the printed book out to explain it. And you don't want to call it right because coaches won't know the rules because it wasn't explained right at the rules meetings which already happened. But they don't know the rules as explained in the meetings anyway because they send somebody who isn't qualified to explain the rules to them to the rules meetings.

So I guess this means you will call it how coaches think it should be called rather than how the rules committee wants you to call it. Makes sense - I hope all refs do this for all commonly mis-understood rules. We can have a conference before each game to explain which rules are commonly misunderstood and will be enforced by coach understanding versus rulebook. I recommend that you start with the rebounded airball and enforce the self pass rule. I encourage suggestions for other alternative rules.

Here is what you need to understand.
 

I am going to call my game regardless of what the rule says. My main concern is what the contact does, then my focus will be on the feet if I can see it. That was stated very clearly in both IHSA Rules Meetings I attended. So I am not going to nit pick over a toe on the line.

Secondly, whether I personally print this out or not, this is not something I am going to take on the court with me during pregame discussions, when coaches ask the "this happen to us last night" conversations, that we get drawn into from time to time. When game 17 in the season takes place and that coach claims all season long that the officials have been not calling what the rulebook says, I will not have a NF interpretation in my back pocket to give to him. And if I did, it would not be appropriate to have a lengthy discussion about it.

Being a 3 sport official and a Referee (the one with the white hat) on my Varsity Football Crew, you would be surprised when we go through our drill with the coaches during the pregame. And you always have a coach that says, "I have not had that called all season," comments when they ask us about a situation that happen in their game. I do not have a rulebook in my back pocket to add to the discussion. And now with these pregame meetings where we have to involve the coaches in basketball, these similar comments are just par for the course.

Now, if there intent was clear, <b>WHY NOT PUT IN IN THE DAMN RULEBOOK?!!!!</b> Why not realize this when you are creating these new rules? This is not just a simple mistake, this is a major mistake. That is all we are saying. We are not trying to debate what their intent was, but not understanding why they would make such a change and not use the one publication that is suppose to be clear, put in the the freakin rulebook. And I am by far not the only one that notices this mistake or confusion. It is nice that they have covered their behind like they did in football with PSK, but it seems to me when someone comes up with these brilliant ideas, they could look at all the possibilites that their rule could cause problems with other wording. Better yet, why not look at <b>Article 3</b> right under your new rule? Not only did they they make the rule, but they also had to highlight <b>"playing court"</b> to try to make their point. But considering how they discuss these new rules, it does not surprise me that this would be missed, as usual. :rolleyes:

Peace

I agree with Rutledge about, "Why not put it in the rulebook?" How tough could it be to change "playing court" to "inbounds?" Sheez...

Jeff -- I'm tempted to send you a little plastic book I found which is actually for photographs, but the little sleeves are a perfect size for rule book pages. You could cut the interp and re-size it into this book with a few other important rules, and it would look very official. Coaches would be impressed with your professionalism.

Still, Jeff, how many times do you anticipate having to deal with this issue? More than twice a season?

Once you guys find a name for this dog with no legs, make sure you take him out for a drag. :)

I think we may have a winner! :D [/B][/QUOTE]

If you drag him behind your boat, you can call him Skip. Or throw him in a hole and call him Phil. Yuck...these are terrible...and the purpose of the Fe. putting out these clarifications is so that the confusion over rules will be cleared up - which it seems they have done...so call your game any way you want to - as long as it is by the correct rules so the crew who comes to that school after YOU won't have to listen to the "Last night" speech about you...

Lasso, come home!

You could hang him on a wall...and call him Art. Or put him under a pile of leaves...and call him Russell. Here boy,...? [rustle, rustle,...]. Sorry

Or you could hang that dog and one of his littermates over your window and call them "Curt 'n' Rod".

...or we could just stick a fork in him & call him done. Which is about what should happen to this thread. The rulesmakers have made perfectly clear what their intent is but we're all big boys & girls around here. If you're too afraid of pissing off a coach or gawdforbid losing an assignment then do what the coaches expect of you. If not then do your job.

Clarification or CYA???
 

From the clarification:
There is an imbalance and an advantage given to the defensive player if he/she is permitted to use an area outside the playing court; especially when the offensive player is not given the same opportunity.

I don't buy this. There is already rule 10-6-2... and it seems contradictory to this new clarification:
A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path no attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact.

Now, because the defender has cut off all opportunity by removing a 'reasonable chance ... to go through without contact' plus an inch - because he stepped on the line.... the burden is no longer on the dribbler, it is a block.

From the clarification:
“The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.” The intent of this sub-article was that the defensive player could be in the air and not touching the floor/ground/playing court.

This has always been the rule... no wonder it was considered editorial.

From the clarification:
Understanding that the defensive player must have in-bounds status to maintain legal guarding position should help alleviate any confusion.

This is new. Clarification maybe? editorial? I don;t think so.

From the clarification:
Officials aren't expected to do anything beyond what they were doing previously.Â* Referee the defense and call the play as they see it.Â*ItÂ’s still a judgment call.

Nothing new? NFHS has created a whole new interpretation if not a new rule. I damn sure have to do something different than what I was doing before. Stepping on a line is not quite the same type of judgement as determining a block/charge. Stepping on the line is rather obvious and requires me to do something new concerning the defense.

From the clarification:
The above interpretation is supported in Situation 7 listed on the NFHS Web site.

Yes it is supported in Situation 7. But it is not supported by your rulebook because the editorial changes to rule 4-23 did not include the clarification in 4-23-3b. that the defender must maintain position on the playing court. the interpretation and clarification is beyond the rule of 4-23-3b. If the intent was the the defender cannot leave the playing court it should have been stated in the rules.

I think it is CoverYourAss(I mean mistakes). And not a very good job.

I can fully agree with establishing a legal guarding position on the playing court and if it was stated in 4-23-3b. I could also agree with maintaining that position fully on the playing court... but it wasn't.

Can't wait to make the call.
:)
I'm sure to hear some howling... let the monkeys loose!
:D

They should have asked for our help before they published!

Tony
I believe that the provision regarding space for a dribbler to get between defender and boundary is precisely why this rule makes sense - if that rule is enforced correctly. I think that coaches learned to teach players to go all the way to the sideline because refs generally go with the dribbler when the dribbler tries to get around a defender at the sideline, even when there is not sufficient space. If defenders stop short, offensive players hit them "off-center," rather than in the middle of the torso, causing a collision that many refs (in my experience) interpret to be a block. I am not saying this because I think calls went against me - I say this because I see it consistently called this way for all teams.

If the block/charge call is consistently made correctly in these "no room to get by" cases, defenders won't need to go all the way on/over the sideline to cut off the dribbler. As for a CYA, call it what you want. They admit that they didn't make it clear enough in the rule book (they will fix the rules next year), but they are also stating that this clarification lays out the specific intent of their rule change this year. When I initially read the change, the clarified version is what I thought I read anyway, as did many others. So for some it is a clarification, for others a confirmation :)

NF can't fix the book until next year. They say they will do this. For now, they can try ensure that people call it the way they intended it to be called this year by clarifiying the meaning of their rule change.

Maybe you could just put her on a wire fence and call her Barb.

Maybe you could just put her on a wire fence and call her Barb.
[/B][/QUOTE]Nope! Not me! Nada! Noooooo way!!!

Please note, O Great Queen of the Oatmeal, that I left this one completely alone!

Famous [favorite ethnicity here] scientist is performing an experiment in his lab. He places a frog on the ground and shouts "Jump!!" The frog jumps 12 feet.

The scientist writes in his notes, "Frog with 4 legs jumps 12 feet."

He cuts off one of the frog's legs, and repeats the experiment. He yells, "Jump!" and the frog jumps 8 feet.

The scientist writes in his notes, "Frog with 3 legs jumps 8 feet."

He cuts off another of the frog's legs, and does the whole thing over again. "Jump!", and the frog jumps 4 feet.

He writes, "Frog with 2 legs jumps 4 feet."

Another leg and another shout. "Jump!" and the frog jumps 2 feet.

He writes, "Frog with 1 leg jumps 2 feet".

He removes the frog's last leg and yells again. "Jump!" He yells again. "Jump!"

After waiting a few seconds, the scientist writes, "Frog with no legs is deaf."

:) How'd I do?

About the same.

YES!! In the immortal words of Ralph Mouth, "I still got it!" :D

Good to see you still hit the hanging curve ball out.

On Oct. 26/Sun., 2003, I sent an email to Mary Strukchoff with the infomation that I had posted on the Officiating.com Basketball Forum on Oct. 20/Mon., 2003. At half time of the Monday Night Football, I had yet to receive a response from Mary, nor had the "Clarification" been posted on the NFHS Basketball Rules webpage. On the morning of Oct. 28/Tue., I received an email from Mary regarding my email to her. Mary's email included an attachment of the "Clarification" as well as letting me know that the Clairification had been posted on the NFHS Basketball webpage.

I have not yet replied to Mary's email, but I am in the process of preparing a letter to a number of present and former members of the NFHS Rules Committee with whom I am friends regarding the NFHS Clarification.

My wife and I have owned two horses during our marriage and I can assure everyone that what comes out of the south end of a northbound horse has infinitely more redeeming social value than the "Clarification."

Can't argue, you're obviously the expert.

Great to have you back, Chuck!!

Yeah, it's like shooting dwarfs in a barrel, isn't it?

You're assuming than when Jurassic said "about the same" that you were "good" before, and still good. However, my Bosux friend, there is another side to that coin. :D

I don't understand why there's such emotion over this clarification. I still think the NFHS ruined basketball when they went back to the "release off the rim" on the free throw, but I had less emotion about it than I've seen here. There's no point in coming out and being so, so, emphatic on a play that may not happen in an entire season.

Also, the rules belong to the NFHS. If they wish to change/alter/clarify those rules on the web or through the states they have every right to do so and I'll use and teach those rules with the best smile I can muster. If a coach asks me this season, I'll tell him the ruling and direct him to the web site or the state office. I won't have to do that, though, because this clarification was covered very thoroughly at our state rules meeting, which is required for officials AND coaches. If the ones that didn't show up don't get word, it's not my problem.

Rich

Classic. :D

I agree completely, Rich. I don't understand what Mark is getting all wound up about. If he officiated football, PSK would have killed him.

Nah, I'm not assuming that. Notice that I quoted Ralph Mouth, who was never actually funny. :)

Sounds like someone has a little too much free time on his hands...