Washington State Interpretation Mtg.

[rockyroad]

Move on up!! Our winters are easier too - if you like lots of rain (on the west side anyway)...

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Move on up!! Our winters are easier too - if you like lots of rain (on the west side anyway)...

Just kiddin'...I'm a life-long Jayhawker--

I'm too fond of sunshine to live where it rains every day & tornadoes don't scare me as much as volcanoes!

Thanks for the offer.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
If that's the Fed interp, then yep - our State actually wants it called differently...in all honesty, can you say that when an offensive player steam-rolls a defender you're gonna blow the whistle, stop, and try to see where the defenders foot was before they got sent three rows into the bleachers, and then call a block when, and if, you can determine that the defenders left heel was 0.2 centimeters on the line??? Like they said at our NCAA mtg (sorry to bring NCAA crap to a Fed. fight) "all contact is not a foul, but all contact IS a decision"...I think WA wants us to make a good decision on those "barely touching the line" cases...

Rock, is this where I give you one of those phony "I feel your pain" speeches, or do I save that for when the Mariners head for spring training?

I know exactly where you're coming from on this. I'm not very fond of this particular call either. But if I see a defender with a foot on the line when a trainwreck occurs, I'm gonna call a block. Why? Because it's the rule, and that's what we're supposed to do- follow the rules. Whether we like those rules or not. I'll just take the Kool-Aid and give the "block" signal. This isn't like a 3-seconds call, where we can ignore it if there's no real advantage there. If we get a trainwreck, we gotta call something- and if we are gonna call something, we might as well make the right call imo.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

So......

If you're in the Kansas state championship game....down 1 with 10 seconds to go.... and your point guard tries to beat a defender right in front of your bench.... but he runs into the defender when the defender definitely has a foot on the line.....if the official then calls a charge on your player, you're just gonna say "good call,ref" and leave it at that? Even if the official says that he knew that the defender was OOB but he thought it was a charge anyway?

Can we get that in writing?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 9th, 2004 at 03:29 PM]

[JRutledge]

You mean that Z has been on my behind about rulings our state has taken that seem contrary with the NF, now Washington is doing something they choose to do? I am in shock. This cannot be happening can it?

I guess a NF state can make up their own rulings.

Peace

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

So......

If you're in the Kansas state championship game....down 1 with 10 seconds to go.... and your point guard tries to beat a defender right in front of your bench.... but he runs into the defender when the defender definitely has a foot on the line.....if the official then calls a charge on your player, you're just gonna say "good call,ref" and leave it at that? Even if the official says that he knew that the defender was OOB but he thought it was a charge anyway?

YES--that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm 100% certain that the FED is wrong on this one. (I will also say that I expect the same call if it happens the other way!)

Here's why it's wrong:

An offensive player catches the ball outside the arc, below FT-line extended. He know the rule about being OOB. There are 10 seconds left in the 4th and his team is down 1. He slowly dribbles toward the baseline (possibly with back the the basket, at least turned protecting the ball), the defender, in legal guarding position slides toward the baseline with him--as the offensive player continues towards the baseline, the defensive player's lead foot is going to encounter the OOB line before the offeinsive player. As soon as the offensive player is near enough the boundary that he knows his opponent's foot is OOB, he lowers he shoulder/head and charges toward the basket---

Your going to tell me this is a block???!!!

It's a rule...a crappy rule...contrived by a group of people who have made a terrible mistake.

Use common sense--this is a CHARGE.



Can we get that in writing?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 9th, 2004 at 03:29 PM]

[coachz_216]

Common sense, my rule book, and the NF interpretation, all tell me this is a BLOCK. [/B][/QUOTE]

...and I respect you for your adherance to the rule book. I'm not a fan of rogue officials who think they are above the rules...

but in this case, I'd have to respectfully say you're showing a lack of understanding of the game if you still think this is a block.

[Camron Rust]

This is not too far different than what I've been saying all along.

You can say "CLEARLY" all you want and in caps and as a big font if you want to but it is CLEAR to me that it is not as you and several others say.

The rule change, comments and interpretations CLEARLY change the definition of legal guarding position and applications based on legal guarding position. They do not change the definitions of a foul.

This has an effect on the foul that is called if legal guarding posiiton is a factor in determing who has fouled but doesn't automatically declare the foul to be on the defender.

Said another way...if the contact is dependant on having LGP, it will be an automatic block if the defender is touching OOB. If it doesn't depend on LGP, it doesn't matter if the defender is touching OOB or not.

Again, it's not saying the rule is wrong or that it should be ignored...just a different interpretation of what is written and how to use it.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 9th, 2004 at 03:58 PM]

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
This is not too far different than what I've been saying all along.

You can say "CLEARLY" all you want and in caps and as a big font if you want to but it is CLEAR to me that it is not as you and several others say.

The rule change, comments and interpretations CLEARLY change the definition of legal guarding position and applications based on legal guarding position. They do not change the definitions of a foul.

This has an effect on the foul that is called if legal guarding posiiton is a factor in determing who has fouled but doesn't automatically declare the foul to be on the defender.

Said another way...if the contact is dependant on having LGP, it will be an automatic block if the defender is touching OOB. If it doesn't depend on LGP, it doesn't matter if the defender is touching OOB or not.

Again, it's not saying the rule is wrong or that it should be ignored...just a different interpretation of what is written and how to use it.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 9th, 2004 at 03:58 PM]

So are you saying that you could have a defender with a foot OOB (by rule not legal guarding position) and call a player control foul on a dribbler for initiating contact?

I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what you are saying.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by BushRef
[QUOTE

Common sense, my rule book, and the NF interpretation, all tell me this is a BLOCK. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bull$hit...your rule book and the Fed interp call it a block, fine...but no way is that common sense! And JR, you should know me well enough by now to know that when I call a HS game, I will do my darndest to get it right by Fed rules - including the things I think the Fed is wrong about...I just ain't gonna worry a whole lot that I might miss that 1 centimeter of sneaker touching the line during a trainwreck...and as far as the Mariners, well, we got a new manager!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by coachz_216

An offensive player catches the ball outside the arc, below FT-line extended. He know the rule about being OOB. There are 10 seconds left in the 4th and his team is down 1. He slowly dribbles toward the baseline (possibly with back the the basket, at least turned protecting the ball), the defender, in legal guarding position slides toward the baseline with him--as the offensive player continues towards the baseline, the defensive player's lead foot is going to encounter the OOB line before the offeinsive player. As soon as the offensive player is near enough the boundary that he knows his opponent's foot is OOB, he lowers he shoulder/head and charges toward the basket---

Your going to tell me this is a block???!!!


[/B]

Coach, I've been telling you for hours that the RULES say that it is a block. The NFHS rules! The NFHS issues the rule book and tells us what the rules are and how they are supposed to be called. We don't have the option of saying "Hey, I don't like that rule, and I'm damnwell not gonna follow it". If we did, you might never be able to call another TO because I absolutely hate the rule that says a coach can call a TO, and so do a lot of officials.It just don't work that way for the poor guy out on the floor with the whistle in his beak. Now, I'm the guy in my Association that gets all of the little phone calls, e-mails or faxes when someone(coach or AD) thinks that one of my guys screwed something up. If it's a judgement call, I can defend my guy. But if it's a rule that someone clearly screwed up, what response do I have? Do you honestly think that someone is gonna accept me telling them that "yes, we called it wrong by rule, but we really think that the rule was wrong in the first place, so we called it the way that we think the rule should be"?

This play isn't a judgement call, Coach. It's not contact on a rebound or a dribbler, or 3 seconds or something that we can judge as not really affecting the play. If we do make a call on this play, the rules say that the only call that can be made is a block. It's that simple.

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Coach, I've been telling you for hours that the RULES say that it is a block. The NFHS rules! The NFHS issues the rule book and tells us what the rules are and how they are supposed to be called. We don't have the option of saying "Hey, I don't like that rule, and I'm damnwell not gonna follow it". If we did, you might never be able to call another TO because I absolutely hate the rule that says a coach can call a TO, and so do a lot of officials.It just don't work that way for the poor guy out on the floor with the whistle in his beak. Now, I'm the guy in my Association that gets all of the little phone calls, e-mails or faxes when someone(coach or AD) thinks that one of my guys screwed something up. If it's a judgement call, I can defend my guy. But if it's a rule that someone clearly screwed up, what response do I have? Do you honestly think that someone is gonna accept me telling them that "yes, we called it wrong by rule, but we really think that the rule was wrong in the first place, so we called it the way that we think the rule should be"?

This play isn't a judgement call, Coach. It's not contact on a rebound or a dribbler, or 3 seconds or something that we can judge as not really affecting the play. If we do make a call on this play, the rules say that the only call that can be made is a block. It's that simple. [/B]

I'm not trying to be difficult--I understand entirely what you're saying. I guess I'm just trying to speak up in support of one of the earlier posts by jrithchie who said what they were instructed to do in WA.

I have seen it called both ways. Usually officials are apologetic when they call the block, and I have just agreed with them saying "I know...it's a rule". I think the better officials are able to find a way around a strict, legalistic interpretation of this specific rule, because it does happen quickly and they can "plead ignorance" (occasionally) about seeing a defender's foot OOB.

Just because it's a rule, doesn't mean it's a good rule. I seem to remember several rule changes in the past that were later repealed (thankfully). (A 5-second closely-guarded rule that was eliminated a few years/and then brought back comes to mind). Most of the rule changes that NF enacts are usually good--even if they are not widely accepted at first. However, I can't think of any reason why it makes sense to penalize a defender who is in perfectly legal guarding position one second, and then an instant later, because he moved his lead foot another inch (or less), he is now out of legal guarding position and all the advantage goes to the offensive player.

If you choose to make that call--life goes on...--but I can't agree that it's the right call for the game of basketball.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by coachz_216
but in this case, I'd have to respectfully say you're showing a lack of understanding of the game if you still think this is a block.

Just because you don't like the rule, he has a lack of understanding of the game?

I don't think so.

A defender who attempts to establish a guarding position with his foot OOB has gained a distinct advantage over a dribbler. Why should he be allowed to go OOB when the dribbler cannot?

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Common sense, my rule book, and the NF interpretation, all tell me this is a BLOCK.

Bull$hit...your rule book and the Fed interp call it a block, fine...but no way is that common sense! And JR, you should know me well enough by now to know that when I call a HS game, I will do my darndest to get it right by Fed rules - including the things I think the Fed is wrong about...I just ain't gonna worry a whole lot that I might miss that 1 centimeter of sneaker touching the line during a trainwreck...and as far as the Mariners, well, we got a new manager! [/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you!!!

A voice of reason in the darkness!

I'm not advocating abolishing the rule book or bombing the NF headquarters--I'm just saying that common sense says this is a charge and you should do exactly what you describe,"...ain't gonna worry a whole lot that I might miss that 1 centimeter of sneaker touching the line during a trainwreck..."

You can call my games anytime.

[JRutledge]

JR,

It is judgment when it comes to whether or not the official sees or feels the foot was on the line during contact. It is not just simple to say, "His foot was on the line so we have a block." Officials are trained to watch the contact, not where all the feet are standing in many of those cases. Now fortunately this is not an issue most of the time. But just like 3 seconds or a hand check, we are going to make a determination as to whether the foot was on the line and how obvious was it. I can see officials not making a big deal if a foot is barely on the line as compared to the foot completely out of bounds. And in the rules the foot hanging over the line should be handled as if they are not touching the line. That is going to be tough for anyone to make this call very easily. I do not that at the college level they told the officials that yes it is a rule, but we know that is going to be tough to see.

I agree that this is a rule, but it is a tough rule to enforce based on previous training. This is a case where the rule makers create something without considering all the ramifications of enforcement. These are obviously not "officials" that are making these decisions.

Peace