Legal Guarding Position...both feet

[RookieDude]

I remember reading a discussion a while back, on this forum, about the new Editorial Change to Rule 4-23.
This change clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the "playing court".

We had some here state that they would not call a charge on a player if the defender had even a portion of his/her foot outside the "playing court".

Well, at our WA state rules clinic the other night...our Rules Clinician stated that as long as a guard had initially obtained a legal guarding position, it didn't matter if his/her foot was out of bounds (off the playing court) when the contact occurs...if the player in control of the ball "charges" into the defender you would not have to call a "block" just because the defender has one foot out of bounds. Now, he did state that if a player COMES FROM OUT OF BOUNDS, that is not an initial legal guarding position...therfore, even if the defender is "charged" into...the call would be a "block" if even just a portion of a foot is out of bounds.

So in conclusion, it matters where the defender first started...was he/she out of bounds initially or not...that is one of the determining factors on how we would call this.

In fact, 4-23-3a states...After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is NOT required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.

Maybe this has already been resolved here...I just remembered reading the part about someone not calling a "player control foul" because the defender had a foot that was not on the playing court.

Comments?

RD

[Jurassic Referee]

Lah me, Rookie Dude. Go down to this recent thread and take a look at it. Please read the link to the NFHS website that Mick posted. Your rules clinician is completely and unambiguously 100% WRONG, by the printed rule. Tell him to go the NFHS website, and get the proper interpretation.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10731

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by RookieDude
In fact, 4-23-3a states...After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is NOT required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.

He's not required to have his feet touching inbounds BUT HE CAN'T BE TOUCHING OOB.

[Indy_Ref]

Rookiedude,

It was also pointed out and clarified that the rule interpretation on the NFHS website CANNOT be supported by the rule book. Therefore, although some officials are going to tell you that your interpreter is wrong, a few others will tell you that your interpreter is completely correct.

I would suggest this to you...

Consider everyone's viewpoints, study the wording and interpretations yourself, and then decide what makes the most sense to you...even if whatever you decide is not popular with every single other official you come into contact with.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref
I would suggest this to you...

Consider everyone's viewpoints, study the wording and interpretations yourself, and then decide what makes the most sense to you...even if whatever you decide is not popular with every single other official you come into contact with.

If one is not going to follow the interp as handed down, the better alternative is to call it the way one's assignor or commissioner wants it called. If we all just called things the way we like or think, there wouldn't BE a game of Basketball. It would be Calvinball, complete with the revenge fouls, the name-calling and the fist fights. Better to fit in to a group, but keep lobbying for change to a position that seems more reasonable.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

If one is not going to follow the interp as handed down, the better alternative is to call it the way one's assignor or commissioner wants it called. If we all just called things the way we like or think, there wouldn't BE a game of Basketball. It would be Calvinball, complete with the revenge fouls, the name-calling and the fist fights. Better to fit in to a group, but keep lobbying for change to a position that seems more reasonable.

You mean I can't just decide that nifty little move to the basket was cool enough for me to ignore the travel that made it happen? Awwwww....c'mon! You are no fun!

[CLAY]

I think rainmaker hit it rigt on the head with his response to the question of legal guarding position. the rule states, you must have both feet on the playing floor. This is black and white. either you are in our you are out. And like rainmaker said you may want to contact your assignor or commissioner to find out how you should make this call.

But for me I will make the call just like the rule states. When my assignor or commissioner starts writing the rules I will listen to them, but until then you call them like you see them.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by CLAY
I think rainmaker hit it rigt on the head with his [OOPS!] response to the question of legal guarding position.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Chuck -- Thanks for speaking up for me. But don't sweat it. Since Dan's been bugging me about getting in touch with my inner macho jock, I'm taking it as a compliment when someone calls me "he". I've been called worse!

[RookieDude]

originally posted by CLAY
This is black and white. either you are in our you are out.

There are some other rules that are "black and white"...should I call those strictly by the book?

i.e. A coach steps on the playing court to request a time out. Should he be on the court...even if it is just a portion of his foot?

A coach steps out of his coaching box...just a portion of his foot...but should I ring him up?

There are many more examples...Indy-Ref is right, I believe, read the rule...deem what you and your association think is the intent of the rule...call it accordingly.

RD

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Chuck -- Thanks for speaking up for me. But don't sweat it. Since Dan's been bugging me about getting in touch with my inner macho jock, I'm taking it as a compliment when someone calls me "he". I've been called worse!

You go boy!