How can a referee make a call and if a player has his foot on the line is the offensive player at liberty to run his *** over?

By blowing the whistle and raising a fist.

Quote:

and if a player has his foot on the line is the offensive player at liberty to run his *** over?

No.

I thought the new interpretation that was discussed at great length said they could.

With the new rule, the offensive player can plow him and it is always a block.

Yep. You can't establish legal guarding position with one foot out of bounds. New NFHS rule this year.

I don't have this year's rulebook yet, but I'm pretty sure it's not automatically a block - we can still pass on the call if no advantage is gained by the offense, right?

The original post said if he "runs his *** over". I'd call that an advantage.

No rule or interpretation allows another player to flagrantly contact another player. Run his a$$ over implies flagrant, at least in certain contexts.

A normal block/charge situation? Yes, it is always a block, unless you are one of the handful of people here who call the rules however they see fit.

One other thing that has been brought up in two meetings that I went to this week is the 5 second call. If the defender start to guard the offensive player while he/she is out of bounds or is guarding the offensive player and steps out of bounds there is no 5 second count.

I hope the coaches are telling the kids to keep it in between the lines.

thank you tomegun
 

Thanks for bringing up this scenario. In all of the discussions on legal gaurding position, the thought of a 5 second call never crossed my mind. I'm glad you brought that to my attention and cleared up any questions.

The key word here is "establish"! After the defense has established a legal gaurding position with their torso facing the opponent(4-23-2a,b), they are not required to have either of both feet on the plating court or continue facing the opponent. We also had this discucion and came up with most of the players on the court have already established a legal gaurding position just by being on the court and near an opponent. If the offense has beaten them past and then they block it is that, but if the offense is going straight through them I would Mostly call that an offensive charge.

monkeyking,
with regard to not having feet on the floor IE lifted off of the floor I agree, however, they may not place the foot out of bounds...it is on the NHFS website as a new interpretation...

monkey,

Check out http://www.nfhs.org/sports/basketball_interp.htm Look at situation #7, I think.

Also, look back at these thread from a couple weeks ago:

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10731
http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10735

Hope it helps.

This was the way it was seen by most officials last season. But this season the NFHS decided that the defender must have inbounds status to maintain legal guarding position.

Read here:

http://nfhs.org/Sports/basketball_4-23_clarified.html

Rich

All the new rule says is that the player can not have LGP if they are OOB. It doesn't say it is automaticaly a block for being being contacted while OOB.

In situation #7 the defender is moving at the time of contact. Since they do not have LGP by virtue of being OOB, it is a block for moving at the time of contact.

However, a fully stationary opponent can always draw a PC foul even if they are not in LGP. For example, A1 fakes a 3-point shot from the top of the key. B5, who is in the middle of the lane, bites and turns for the rebound. A1 drives down the lane right up the back of a stationary B5 and knocks B5 over. B5 never had LGP but A1 still commited a player control foul.

So, A1 does NOT have free reign to run someone over just because they are not in LGP (out-of-bounds or inbounds). The impact is that B1 is not in LGP when OOB and, as a result, does not ave the right to verticality or to be moving laterally or obliquely when contact occurs.

Let's not overstate this new rule and create another myth.

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 :)

Let's look at Sit #7.

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....

Actually, I'm not picking and choosing parts. I'm just not adding things to it that aren't there. The rule change is clearly dealing with LGP. The situation and interpretation are clearly talking about LGP. The effect is that, in most cases, this will make the contact a block that would have been a charge before. It does not address contact with an OOB opponent that doesn't depend on LGP.

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.

Just trying to push my post count higher...;)


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.

Here we go again....

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?