![]() |
Cameron,
I respectfully disagree with your take on the interpretation at the NHFS website. It says nothing about B1 moving in situation 7A, it only says that they have 1 foot on the boundary line, and it is therefore to be called a block. If the movement were the key here then in situation B where the player only has a foot "over" the boundary line but in the air, then neither A or B would be a block. The interpretation is specifically referring to having a foot on the line, and the interpretation is that this is to be called a block if seen, no ifs ands or buts...with that said, I do think that intentionally contacting an opponent ie running his @$$ is maybe another can of worms, like a flagrant personal foul....which might bring us to a false double foul ;) wooooo hoooooooooo.. coaches everywhere will love us right Hawkscoach ;p :) |
Quote:
B1 <b>obtains a legal guarding position</b> on A1, who is dribbling the ball near the sideline. <b>There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays in the path of A1</B> but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line, or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. To me, to obtain LGP, B1 must have been inbounds (according to the new rule). For B1 to stay in the path of A1 and ultimately touch OOB, that implies B1 was moving. If not, how did he get OOB? The rule change does not address the definition of a foul. It only changes the definition of LGP. If the same action were to occur in the middle of the floor without LGP, it should be the same call. Of course, in most practical cases, B1 will be moving and playing active defense so that the call will be a block. I'm just wanting to avoid reading more into this than is really there. As you mentioned about deliberately running over an opponent...this can't be the desire or intention of anyone to make a defender open for a free hit when they are OOB. |
cameron, you can't just pick and choose part of the interp and leave the rest out...the fact that the only difference between the two situations is the foot touching OOB or not Touching OOB means that the rest of the situation is the same...and in the the ruling they speak to the reason the contact in A is called a block is that B1 is touching out of bounds, it says nothing about the movement...if the movement were the issue it would be a block in B also, but the ruling says that the guard obtained and maintained legal guarding postition in B....
|
Quote:
For you to say that part B would be a block if there were movement leads me to believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of LGP and what it or the lack of it implies. Movement would NOT make B a block. To maintain a LGP, a defender must move. There is no other way. It is still a charge/PC if, in part B, B1 is moving as long as it is not towards the dribbler. In this case, if a foot is over the OOB area, I'd suspect the player is moving towards OOB and not towards the dribbler. The reason part A is a block is because that B1 is touching OOB and does not have LGP. The reason B is not is because B1 has LGP because they are not touching OOB. It hinges on LGP. Being OOB is the reason they don't have LGP. Again, LGP opens up extra privledges for the defender regarding movement and contact. Without LGP, those same actions become a block....anywhere on the floor. The sideline argument is just that; the player has lost LGP and will get called for a block for actions not allowed without LGP. |
LOL ok we are saying the same thing...the reason he doesn't have LGP is because he is OOB...that is what I was saying also.
|
Quote:
So, we are in agreement after all. ;) It is a block becuase B1 was doing something at the time of contact that was not allowed without LGP but not simply becuase B1 was OOB. However, the reason B1 lost LGP is due to being OOB. |
if the LGP is established(on the playing court), the guard is not required to have either or both feet ON THE PLAYING COURT or continue facing the opponent.
|
Quote:
You are correct IF you read only the rulebook. However, the NFHS has released an interpretation to clarify the <em>editorial</em> change and has also released a clarification to clarify the interpretation. In these, LGP is lost once the player touches OOB. It is only a PC foul, if it doesn't depend on LGP. I know, the rule doesn't even mention anything like it. Nothing like changing a rule by interpretation. ;) See ChuckElias's and Rich Fronheiser's links earlier in this thread for the NFHS info. |
I tryed posting my reply to the NFHS website 4-23 clarification but it didn't pop up. I now know what you guys are talking about. There are a lot of officials out there that are going to misunderstand this rule. If everybody had a problem with the rule last year why not print it correctly in the 2003-04 rule book?
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49pm. |