legal guarding position

[John Schaefferkoetter]

There has been some scuttle buttle around this area about this rule, please help me to clarify.

NFHS Basketball Rules Book Section 23 Article 2 reads: To obtain a 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.
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.

I do take this to mean that the defensive player has to have both feet in bounds when they start guarding the offensive player. As long as they continue guarding them, if one or both feet go out of bounds they are still in a legal guarding position and a charge can be called, if necessary.

[mick]

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

[stewcall]

Originally posted by John Schaefferkoetter
There has been some scuttle buttle around this area about this rule, please help me to clarify.

NFHS Basketball Rules Book Section 23 Article 2 reads: To obtain a 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.
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.

I do take this to mean that the defensive player has to have both feet in bounds when they start guarding the offensive player. As long as they continue guarding them, if one or both feet go out of bounds they are still in a legal guarding position and a charge can be called, if necessary.

Interesting discussion at our board tonight. the interpreter stated "for the test call it a block if the foot is our of bounds- during the season call the charge if legal guarding position is established and it's torso to torso contact- even if the foot is out of bounds- it's still a charge.

So this second year official will be calling his big brother and figure what to do.

Stew in VA
CVBOA

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by stewcall
Interesting discussion at our board tonight. the interpreter stated "for the test call it a block if the foot is our of bounds- during the season call the charge if legal guarding position is established and it's torso to torso contact- even if the foot is out of bounds- it's still a charge.

So this second year official will be calling his big brother and figure what to do.

Stew in VA
CVBOA

We had a similar discussion in our first meeting. We were told to use the location of the foot to help determine legal initial guarding position. But if it's established legally, ignore the location of the foot on the block/charge.

[Tim Roden]

What? Our interpreter said that the minute he sets his foot oob, he has lost his legal gurading position and must come back onto the floor and reestablish it. If he is OOB it is a block.

[BigDave]

Originally posted by Tim Roden
What? Our interpreter said that the minute he sets his foot oob, he has lost his legal gurading position and must come back onto the floor and reestablish it. If he is OOB it is a block.

Exactly. Our state commissioner (who is also on the National committee) says that if a foot is OOB, it is a block every time. It doesn't matter if the kid has been standing there all night. Based on the new rule, it will always be a block unless he/she has both feet inbounds.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BigDave

Exactly. Our state commissioner (who is also on the National committee) says that if a foot is OOB, it is a block every time. It doesn't matter if the kid has been standing there all night. Based on the new rule, it will always be a block unless he/she has both feet inbounds.

Both of your interpreters' are telling you the right way to call this play, by rule. Stew's interpreter in Virginia knows exactly how the new rule works, but is basically telling all his officials that he wants them to ignore the new rule and make the WRONG call.Personally, I don't know how they're gonna justify that to a coach that may happen to know how the new rule is supposed to be called- unless they lie and say something like "Oh no, Coach, the defender's foot wasn't on the line. You're seeing things". Also personally, I don't think that any interpreter should ever tell their guys to deliberately call something against the rules, just because they don't happen to like or agree with that particular rule. I don't know how Va works, but the interesting part might happen when state play-offs come, and guys from Stew's association may have to leave their area to work with officials from another association,or may have to work under a new interpreter for a regional or state tournament. How are you gonna call it then?

[stewcall]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Both of your interpreters' are telling you the right way to call this play, by rule. Stew's interpreter in Virginia knows exactly how the new rule works, but is basically telling all his officials that he wants them to ignore the new rule and make the WRONG call.Personally, I don't know how they're gonna justify that to a coach that may happen to know how the new rule is supposed to be called- unless they lie and say something like "Oh no, Coach, the defender's foot wasn't on the line. You're seeing things". Also personally, I don't think that any interpreter should ever tell their guys to deliberately call something against the rules, just because they don't happen to like or agree with that particular rule. I don't know how Va works, but the interesting part might happen when state play-offs come, and guys from Stew's association may have to leave their area to work with officials from another association,or may have to work under a new interpreter for a regional or state tournament. How are you gonna call it then?

What I plan to do is to discuss this situation at every pre-game and go with the crew.

Stew in VA
CVBOA

[BigDave]

Originally posted by stewcall

What I plan to do is to discuss this situation at every pre-game and go with the crew.

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.

[stewcall]

CVBOA [/B][/QUOTE]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]

oh, maybe not by rule, but I am a provisional member (in my second year). Will be voted on at the end of te season for full membership. I have an interpreter who knows the rule, but tells the membership to call it wrong. So it seems to me it is more important that the crew "get it right" by being consistent. I will state my case during pre-game regarding the rule.
Stew in Va
CVBOA

[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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by stewcall

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]

oh, maybe not by rule, but I am a provisional member (in my second year). Will be voted on at the end of te season for full membership. I have an interpreter who knows the rule, but tells the membership to call it wrong. So it seems to me it is more important that the crew "get it right" by being consistent. I will state my case during pre-game regarding the rule.
Stew in Va
CVBOA [/B][/QUOTE]

Sounds like good "people skills" to me!

[David B]

Stew in VA
CVBOA [/B][/QUOTE]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.

That's what's in the book. But I know at our state mtg., the state rep said what others have said if he's out of bounds call it a block.

Oops, I missed Mick's post above. It has the clarification in the link.

Thanks
David


[Edited by David B on Nov 7th, 2003 at 03:21 PM]

[Grail]

NFHS has clarified it on their website. I'm sure next years book will include the interpretation, but it states pretty clearly how it should be called.

[John Schaefferkoetter]

Thanks for everybody's replies, but I still find it contradicting. Read the below comment made in the NFHS editorial change.

Officiating: There is no doubt that a block/charge call is a difficult call to make. Officials should know the location of the defensive player’s feet to properly call this play. If officials referee the defense, it becomes easier, but 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. Officials aren't expected to do anything beyond what they were doing previously. Referee the defense and call the play as they see it. It’s still a judgment call.

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.