Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

I had the offensive end figured out Mick. On defense, I'm not sure I ever got into LGP because as A1, I was rarely within 6' of B1. I had a 6'8" leaper on my team and he covered for me. :)

Z

I couldn't agree more with rainmaker.

Rainmaker wrote: <b>"Reasonable, intelligent, mature, successful people can completely and totally disagree about the nature of reality, and never find a resolution. If you doubt that, just look closely at the latest presidential election.
"</b>

And which side had the "reasonable, intelligent and mature people?"

She didn't say either side was full of "reasonable, intelligent and mature people?" Each had at least two. I'll name them.....
<TABLE><TR height=100><TD></TD></TABLE>
hmmmm....
<TABLE><TR height=100><TD></TD></TABLE>
I'll have to get back to you on the names. ;)

Both sides do. That's the point.

I'm glad someone got it Camron. It apparently went over Rainmakers head...emoticon and all.

Yea, I'm being obtuse. But I really wasn't joking about people being on opposite sides of something and still being able to respect each other. It ought to happen a lot more than it does.

Jewel,
GarthB has a very wry and dry wit. ;)
mick

And I usually like it dry, but I haven't been myself lately. Life's getting a little too serious these days. I'll just have to stick to whacking trolls, and trying to mollify coaches.

this is fun
 

I love this discussion. :)

[ducks]

Seriously. As a new official, I love finding things that were totally 100% legal "back in the day" (tm) when I played ball that are now not legal. I make a note of them. I find it very helpful. And I like to hear the discussion about why.

"Back in the day" (tm) we were taught that the Cardinal rule of defense was "dont let your man go baseline." I cant tell you how many times that was drilled into my head. And part of "not letting your man go baseline" was stomping your foot on the endline so he didnt have any wiggle room. Not only was that legal, it was a good idea. Not only was it a good idea, it was preached up and down as "the best way to meet your cardinal obligation of not letting your guy go baseline."

Now as I begin my career as a ref I need to know that not only is it not a good idea it is in fact illegal. According to the NFHS Rules Interpretations it is an automatic block if there is contact (or so it appears to my rookie review of the rules and your experienced views here).

Wierd.

Thinking as a player only, I personally like the idea that it is legal to step on the end line. It is the "sixth defender" idea. I personally dont view the advantage of stepping on the end line as drastic an advantage as an offensive player leaving the inbounds area to go around a pick for instance. YMMV.

It will be interesting to see how my view of play changes as I learn to be an official. I am looking forward to that dynamic.

But for now I chalk this little fact (that stepping on the end line means it is a block) up in the same place with the fact that lifting your foot from the lane is "defeating the rule" and is NOT enough to end a 3-second count, which was as much an offensive staple "back in the day" (tm) as stepping on the end line was a defensive staple.

Did you all have similar experiences when you first started officiating? Things you did that were legal/illegal that when you started reffing were no longer legal/illegal?

Clark

And I usually like it dry, but I haven't been myself lately. Life's getting a little too serious these days. I'll just have to stick to whacking trolls, and trying to mollify coaches. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hang in and hold on.

Re: this is fun
 

Well, my first season was the first year a shot could count for 3-points. But I guess that dates me a bit.

I can't believe this topic has dragged on this long, but your post makes it clearer for me why the NFHS has come down so hard on the "foot on the baseline." There should be no reason for a defender to have to gain an unfair advantage in this way -- the player with the ball cannot go out of bounds and neither should the defender. It is possible to seal off the baseline without putting half a body out of bounds, but more difficult. Why give the defender an advantage not intended by the rules?

I live in a state where it was mentioned as a clarification by the NFHS and where there was absolutely no discussion about the change -- coaches and officials said nothing as this change was mentioned. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I called a PC foul in this situation, but then again, I never really had to study the feet until this season :)

Regarding lifting the foot and the 3-second violation, if you need to split this hair, pass on the call unless it screams out to you and everyone else. You'll find that there is quite a bit of judgment involved in calling this violation -- and quite a few people screaming from the benches and stands that don't understand the rule, either.

--Rich

Oh I dont plan to make that "lift the foot 3 second call" my spotlight call of the night. :) I was just commenting that I have now learned that that trick is illegal when "back in the day" (tm) it was perfectly acceptable. Which is all part of my learning process.

Clark

what???
 

you consider it a sixth man yet it isn't that big of an advantage. LOL honestly that first statement is the best point as of yet.."It is the "sixth defender" idea." If that isn't an advantage gained I don't know what is.. By the way Newbie, welcome to the board. There are lots of good discussions here.

Thanks!

I'm just saying as a player I dont see it as a problem. Using the sideline to aid your defense happens all the time--the division line once they enter front court, the side line, the end line. Those are all considered "6th defenders" and are all totally legal. Stepping on the line isnt that much more than what is already allowed. Thats all I was saying.

I wasnt saying that stepping on the line gives you a 6th defender--the court already is the 6th defender. Or at least that was an old defensive priciple we were taught "back in the day." (tm) which is why you see so many traps near the division line and when the ball goes to the side--because two defenders use the line as an additional defender. It is an efficient use of defensive man power.

Back to my main point--I like knowing about things that were legal when I played are now illegal. That is important for me to know as a new ref. And it will also be interesting to see how my view of things changes as I go from "ex-player" to "official."

Clark

total newbie brings up an interesting point---

Once the offensive team establishes team control in the FC, isn't the next logical step to say that a defensive player isn't allowed to step into the backcourt when guarding an offensive player near the division line? It isn't legal for the offensive player to step across that line when dribbling--certainly we shouldn't allow the defender to step into the backcourt and still maintain legal guarding position...

Just thinking...

Don't confuse us!!

LOL ok thats in lets go back to the old style...three players on each team in each half of the court, no dribbling....LOL :D

...and how about a center jump after every made basket!...

the center jump after every made basket takes up too much time lets just go AP every time LOL

I agree--not a proponent of the center jump...

Just thought that as long as we were going to go "old-school" we might as well go all-the-way!

well lets make it an old school new school mix so as to include all of the oldsters and newbies LOL

Works for me--but I think we should allow defenders to step OOB (or on the division line once the ball is in FC) and still maintain legal guarding position--I haven't heard a good argument for why that shouldn't be allowed!

Beautiful! Good Observation Coach.

Hey Coach...are you giving up Coaching?
Are you going to officiate full-time...or split it w/ coaching?
What level of officiating have you done in the past?
Have you ever gotten a T...and if so, did you deserve it?

Yes--I'm giving up coaching (for now). I've got a couple of sons (ages 8 & 6) & I wouldn't mind coaching them some day, but if I'm going to be coaching when they are 15-19--I've got to have a break for now.

In the past I officiated for 3 years--moved up to a full varsity HS schedule and got to work some 1st round playoff games at the HS level. I did a little small college JV stuff. I'm hoping to move into more collegiate work this time around, but after 11 years out, you have to start back at the starting line (rightly so.)!

Yes--I've gotten T's before (some well deserved, some not so much). Some I got on purpose in an attempt to change momentum or the way a game was being officiated--most were the usual complaining about a call too much. I got more when I was younger (had more energy to argue back then). Haven't had one the past couple of years--maybe I'm losing my edge!

Offensive Player OOB
 

Quote:

Originally posted by coachz_216 If a defender in great position beats an offensive player to the spot and happens to be a few inches onto the line--I would think a good official would just say "I didn't see him on the line...", call the PC foul and head the other way.

Coach Z,

As it was explained to me, one rational for this rule change is to NOT give the defender special treatment. An offensive player with the ball can not step on the line and be considered in play. Why should a defender be given that right? If the offense is required to stay in bounds, the same should apply to the defense.

I've had the same concerns as your association. I've been worried about the offensive player that takes advantage of this rule and clocks the defender. I believe we have recourse within the rules. I could call a double foul: blocking on the defender and a flagrant foul on the offender if I believe the offender intentional tried to hurt the defender. A flagrant foul by rule can be called for violent contact. However, I had better be able to sell this call as it will mean the offensive player is disqualified.

Re: Offensive Player OOB
 

rwest--

Thanks for your post. I've heard that argument as well. I'm not going to repeat what I've already posted earlier in this thread--I hope you can take the time to find some of my earlier scenarios/justifications for why I think this is a bad rule & needs to be changed. I've considered it for the past year & tried to see it from all three perspectives (player,coach,official).

I like what some of the posters said about how they would/have handled it. I think the block/flagrant call is very extreme and not very likely to happen. If you've got the guts to eject a dribbler who just goes hard to the basket and "happens" to run over a defender--then you are a braver soul than any of the officials that I have seen.

I think the FC/BC division line question exemplifies why this is a ludicrous rule. I haven't heard anyone say that a defender shouldn't be allowed to step on the division line and maintain legal guarding position. The penalty for the offense in this case is exactly the same as stepping on any other boundary.

The bottom line to me is that Block/Charge is called (not necessarily by rule) based on the defender's ability to "center" his body, in proper defensive position, in front of the offensive player before the offensive player gets to that spot. In order for a defender to get properly "centered" on an offensive player's body, when near the boundary (or division line), he is likely to have to have a foot OOB. To me that's not an "unfair" advantage to a defender--it's simply allowing them to move to a position where they can appropriately guard the offensive player.

Re: Re: Offensive Player OOB
 

I haven't read every post on this thread. So I apologize if I'm rehashing old arguments. I've got a couple of points based on your reply.

1. "If you've got the guts to eject a dribbler who just goes hard to the basket and "happens" to run over a defender--then you are a braver soul than any of the officials that I have seen."

I'm not a braver soul and in the scenario you gave I would not call a flagrant foul. The scenario I have in mind is when it is obvious to everyone that the offensive player was trying to hurt the defender. Just going hard to the basket is not enough. Seeing the defender's foot on the line, lowering his shoulder like a linebacker and giving it all he 's got is more what I was thinking about.

2. "I haven't heard anyone say that a defender shouldn't be allowed to step on the division line and maintain legal guarding position."

That's because the division line is part of the playing area of the court. The sidelines/endlines are not.

3. "In order for a defender to get properly "centered" on an offensive player's body, when near the boundary (or division line), he is likely to have to have a foot OOB. To me that's not an "unfair" advantage to a defender--it's simply allowing them to move to a position where they can appropriately guard the offensive player."

He doesn't "have" to have a foot out of bounds. He chose to have a foot out of bounds. He could have set up further in bounds and avoided the situation. Again, I don't believe the defender should be able to step out of bounds to cut off the sideline/baseline. If we allow that, then we are giving him/her more space to play in than we allow the offensive player. If we allow his/her foot to be touching the line, then why not allow his/her foot to be completely over the line. How far out of bounds are we going to give the defender? Are you going to allow the offensive player to go out of bounds to avoid the contact? No. Then why allow the defender to setup out of bounds to get the PC call?

I guess we are just going to have to respectfully disagree on this one.