Regarding the in-bounds status of a defender maintaning legal guarding position:

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.

Article 3, which indicates the player is not required to have both feet on the playing court, simply allows for verticality. Looking at the rule from that angle, along with the AR indicating in-bounds status must be maintaned.

To me, that reconciles the issues.

"Obtaining" legal guarding position and "continuing" to be in a legal guarding position are two separate things. Under the principle of verticality, you cannot "obtain" a legal guarding position while in mid-air. However, you can still be in legal guarding position in mid-air if you first "obtained" it with both feet on the ground.

Good for you, but I'm still confused.
 

<u>Major Editorial Changes</u>
4-23 Clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the “playing court.”

http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_rules_change.htm

But I don't care. If NFHS makes it cloudy, I can do what I want. ;)

TriggerMN,
Concerning the question of legal guarding status and a player inbounds or not:

I have not seen an issue with how to obtain legal guarding status and in my mind it is a given that verticality only applies after a legal guarding position has been established.

The question/issue is the wording "The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court" (after obtaining legal guarding status) in Article 3.
That phrase, allows for verticality (both feet not touching the playing court, but still inbounds). That along with the AR of loosing legal guarding status if you step OOB, is what solves the problem (for me).

I agree that Article 3 should be worded differently to agree with the AR without raising a question.

This was specifically addressed at our interpreter's meeting here in the state of Washington (after several calls to the NFHS for clarification according to our interpreter).

Here was what we were told (so don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger). LGP has to established with both feet in bounds. Once it's established, the defender <b> can </b> draw a charge with one foot out of bounds.

So player B1 establishes LGP against player A1. A1 is dribbling near the sideline. B1 moves to stay in front of A1 and in doing so, steps out of bounds with a foot. A1 charges into B1. Player control foul on A1.

Z

That would be a block in SC.

In all of the discussions I have heard in MN, once the defender's foot is touching OOB he has lost his legal gaurding position and should be called a block.

I wonder how your interpreter and my interpreter got two different interpretations? We were told that the OOB foot makes this call a BLOCK (not that folks think this is a good
ruling). At the NFHS site go to rules/basketball. The first article contains "further clarification of the rule emphasis" (or something like that). The case play included clearly states the defender established LGP then steps OOB, then contact occurs. BLOCK

Anyway, the answer to the question on the NFHS exam is BLOCK.

Yes, I was quite sure that I understood the new rule before I attended our rules clinic, especially having read the clarification on the NFHS website. Then our interpreter explained it completely contrary to what I thought I had read up to that point.

I might have even doubted our interpreter until he told us that several calls were made to Mary Struck herself because there was so much confusion about the rule. Our clinic was a little over a week ago.

I'll send an e-mail to our state official's commissioner here shortly and ask him to explain the apparent conflict between what Mary Struck's office said and what is on the NFHS website.

Z

There's the problem. Maybe if he'd call Mary Struckhoff he'd get a different answer. ;)

After reading all the discussion here, I was also surprised to attend our meeting here in Utah and be told that the foot on the line only affects the establishment of initial guarding position. They followed that up with a statement that the rules committee would be "fixing" this next year. Perhaps the committee has rethought its published interpretation?

We're on a nickname basis with her Bob. Usually we just call her "the Struck." :-)

Z