legal guarding position

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by John Schaefferkoetter

They are stating that it is still quite possible that an official might not see a portion of the defender's foot on the boundary line when contact occurs. And officials aren't expected to do anything beyond what they are were doing before. Those 2 statments tell me that it is ok if you have a portion of the foot on the line.

No, that is not what they are saying. They are saying that it is possible that you will not be able to focus on the feet in time to use that as part of the determining criteria for making the call. However, if you do happen to see the foot out of bounds, it IS A BLOCK!

[Hawks Coach]

John
If an offensive player steps on the line while dribbling and the official sees it, it is OOB, If not, we keep playing (and listen to B's fans yell!).

If a defensive player steps on the line and you see it, it is a block, not an "I have permission from NF to overlook this subtle transgression" kind of call. If you are reffing and calling what is obvious and you aren't locked in on the feet of a defender, you may not notice and therefore not call (note the absence of a wink here - I mean it as written!).

If you see it, you are supposed to call what you saw, not pretend you didn't see it.

[David B]

I read it that way also.

If you know w/out a doubt that his foot was OOB or on the line then call the block.

But I know I had a play in a game last night with guy driving baseline and it happens so quick that it was after the fact that i thought about where his feet were.

I know the defensive player was in bounds but I have not an idea where his foot was.

but I know in my judgement it was a charge and that was the call.

Thanks
David

[BigDave]

Originally posted by David B
I know the defensive player was in bounds but I have not an idea where his foot was.

Can you clarify this? If you don't know where his feet were, how do you know if he was inbounds or not?

[Hawks Coach]

I'm guessing he meant that his torso was over the court, hard to say if foot touched boundary. As a Coach, I hope you aren't staring at feet, but making the call just as described here. Happened quick, player not obviously OOB, looks like a charge, must be a charge.

[David B]

Exactly!

Thanks
David

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I'm guessing he meant that his torso was over the court, hard to say if foot touched boundary. As a Coach, I hope you aren't staring at feet, but making the call just as described here. Happened quick, player not obviously OOB, looks like a charge, must be a charge.

[oatmealqueen]

Originally posted by David B
Stew in VA
CVBOA

Stew, this simply isn't required. The rule states that if the defender is OOB, it's a block. No need for a discussion. [/B][/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. The rules states:

Article 3: After the initial guarding position is obtained a. The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.



Just another take here: Could Article 3 mean that one foot could be in the air and one on the floor, and still retain legal guarding position, once established? Just a new wrinkle.
I still believe that legal guarding must begin with both feet in bounds.

[williebfree]

Originally posted by Ref3
I asked the WIAA (Wisconsin) to clarify, the director of basketball told me "if the foot is out of bounds, BLOCK". Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

Heard the same loud and clear message at the mandatory meeting in Birnamwood-Wittenberg. You cannot have legal guarding position if you have OOB status.

Welcome aboard Ref3 Good to have more WIAA officials represented here!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by oatmealqueen
[/B]

I beg to differ. The rules states:

Article 3: After the initial guarding position is obtained a. The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.



Just another take here: Could Article 3 mean that one foot could be in the air and one on the floor, and still retain legal guarding position, once established? Just a new wrinkle.
I still believe that legal guarding must begin with both feet in bounds.

[/B][/QUOTE]Barb, did you read the link from the NFHS that Mick posted at the start of this thread? That's the approved interpretation of this play, and it couldn't be clearer. I'll repost it for you below.
-Legal guarding position must start with both feet in bounds.
-If the defender has a foot OOB when contact occurs, it is a block because the defender isn't in a legal guarding position.
-One foot in the air and one foot inbounds means the player is inbounds- so that player may be in a legal guarding position. That's 7(b) on the posted interp.

http://www.nfhs.org/Sports/basketbal...clarified.html

[John Schaefferkoetter]

It is very clear now. The bottom line is to do it by the book.

This is what I like about this forum, very informative, with many intelligent officials to learn from. Thanks to everyone for their input.

Till the next question or comment. Thank you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by John Schaefferkoetter
It is very clear now. The bottom line is to do it by the book.

It would be nice if it were that simple, John. The problem is that the interpreters for some associations are telling their members NOT to call the rule the way that the NFHS intended that it should be called. That's the problem that Stew from Virginia is facing now, for instance. He's a fairly new official and he knows how the rule should be called-- but his interpreter is telling him to call it against the rule. Stew doesn't really have any choice but to follow what his association is telling him to do-no matter that he knows that it is wrong.

[Tim Roden]

bottom line is listen to your interpreter and call it the way they want you to. Whether or not you agree. Answer according to the book on your test.

[BigDave]

Originally posted by Tim Roden
bottom line is listen to your interpreter and call it the way they want you to. Whether or not you agree. Answer according to the book on your test.

Tim, I can definitely understand where you are coming from, but isn't this totally against what we as officials do? We make sure games are played fairly and by the rules. I believe the right thing for all of us to do is raise the BS flag to these assignors and interpreters and let them know that they are wrong. Of course some tact must be used, but to just lay down and agree with them because they are in a position of authority is not right.

I guess I need to consider myself lucky that the state of Arizona is going to call this the way the rule book says to.

[oatmealqueen]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I beg to differ. The rules states:

Article 3: After the initial guarding position is obtained a. The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.



Just another take here: Could Article 3 mean that one foot could be in the air and one on the floor, and still retain legal guarding position, once established? Just a new wrinkle.
I still believe that legal guarding must begin with both feet in bounds.

[/B]

Barb, did you read the link from the NFHS that Mick posted at the start of this thread? That's the approved interpretation of this play, and it couldn't be clearer. I'll repost it for you below.
-Legal guarding position must start with both feet in bounds.
-If the defender has a foot OOB when contact occurs, it is a block because the defender isn't in a legal guarding position.
-One foot in the air and one foot inbounds means the player is inbounds- so that player may be in a legal guarding position. That's 7(b) on the posted interp.


Thanks JR,
It was a little late, and I just skimmed the posts.