Washington State Interpretation Mtg.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Camron Rust


There you go again making unfounded assertions. Nearly every one of the people on the rules committee are accomplished officials.

You may not like they decisions they make nor the quality of their writing but that doesn't mean anything about them being "officials".

Camron,

My statement was rather tongue and cheek. If they are accomplished officials, they sure know how to create rules that use little or no common sense. They should know that officials are not looking at contact from feet first. I also know there are individuals on that committee that are not officials. We had a representative from our state that was on the NF committee (Current IHSA Executive Director) and was not an official. So I am not sure you know the background of everyone that was on the committee. And the editor of the NF Basketball book was not very liked when she was here in our state. Obviously you are not aware of all the dynamics of my statement or you would not be taking issue with it. Just because you once blew a whistle, does not mean you act like an understanding official when you sit on the committee. The NCAA Committee makes rules with basically all coaches and the NF follows them in many cases regardless of how silly the rules are. That to me is not thinking like an official when you know the problems you are going to create in application of the rules you set forth.

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Hey, Ray, if you're going out for popcorn and coke, get me one too, please!

Diet or regular?

[RickyD]

Our state rules clinician gave us the annual basketball rules clinc in late October. The "profanity" issue that says we call a T for unporting conduct if coach or player let out an explicative and we hear it regardless of whether it is directed to the officials or anyone else. One of our basketball officials who is also a football officials asked if this emphasis was to extend to other sports such as football. The clinician stated "football is football" and it is different. He clearly meant that an explicative let loose in a football game would in all likelihood not be treated in the same way.
This seems inconsistent with the larger NFHS intent to rein in the nastiness of the various sports. Opinions??

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I do not know what the heck you are talking about an "individual" ruling? Now you are basically saying the same thing and you are talking about how wonderful that decision is. Sounds very hypocritical if you ask me.

Peace

I believe that we were talking about an NFHS mechanic "ban" in the previous thread that you are referring to, not a statewide rule modification. However, I'll have to suck on my whistle on this one as I can see how my position could appear to be as flip-floppy as John Kerry.

Z

[Rich]

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]

Unless a state decides to play by a different rule or interpretation, which (as another poster has posted) *IS* its option. Why are some people so thick over this?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Diet or regular?

Hey guys, I'm back.

Did I miss anything?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RickyD
Our state rules clinician gave us the annual basketball rules clinc in late October. The "profanity" issue that says we call a T for unporting conduct if coach or player let out an explicative and we hear it regardless of whether it is directed to the officials or anyone else. One of our basketball officials who is also a football officials asked if this emphasis was to extend to other sports such as football. The clinician stated "football is football" and it is different. He clearly meant that an explicative let loose in a football game would in all likelihood not be treated in the same way.
This seems inconsistent with the larger NFHS intent to rein in the nastiness of the various sports. Opinions??

Profanity is a POE in the basketball rule book this year. Your state clinician is simply passing along that POE, and telling you and your fellow officials to call it as intended.

Profanity may not be a problem or concern in football, so the FED rulesmakers may not have specifically targeted it like their basketball counterparts did. The bottom line is you do what your state tells you to do, and hope that your fellow officials do the same in the name of consistency.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Unless a state decides to play by a different rule or interpretation, which (as another poster has posted) *IS* its option. Why are some people so thick over this? [/B]

Agree with that. Not a problem in Washington. Could be a major problem in the rest of the country though if somebody tries to use the "Washington only" interpretation outside of Washington.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


I believe that we were talking about an NFHS mechanic "ban" in the previous thread that you are referring to, not a statewide rule modification. However, I'll have to suck on my whistle on this one as I can see how my position could appear to be as flip-floppy as John Kerry.

Z

We are basically talking about the same thing. You state just decided to do it with a rule, my state decided to do it with a mechanic. At least in the situation where my state did this with a mechanic that is not yet clarified with the new changes. In the mechanics books there are a lot of holes in situations and circumstances that the NF never clarifies. The rulebook is totally different.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally posted by zebraman
Just some interesting interpretations at our interpreter's meeting that sounded like they might be a little different from some other states that I saw posted here in the past few weeks.

1) In our state, it will still be a player control foul if a defender has a foot on the out-of-bounds line and is charged by the offensive player who has the ball.

2) If there are two injured players (one from each team), the coaches have to declare if they are going to call a time-out in order to keep their player in BEFORE any time-outs are called. If both teams call time-out, the time-outs run CONCURRENTLY.

3) Profanity that is able to be heard by spectators is to be called a technical foul even if it is not directed at an official.

4) The interpreter said that the rules say that it is a technical foul for a bench player who leaves the bench area (to get a drink of water etc.), however he then said that is the coaches responsibility and told the coaches in attendance that it is not the officials job to watch the water fountain. :-)

Z

Just curious...which clinic did you attend? Who was the clinician?

[zebraman]

I attended the Clinic at Cascade HS in Everett, WA on Monday of this week. Interpreter was Fetterly.

Z

[RookieDude]

Just for information...I attended the clinic in Richland, WA...the clinician was Steve Simonson, Cascade H.S. Athletic Director in Leavenworth, WA...Steve, IMO, is one of the best officials on this side of the State.

Eyebrows raised when he also gave the directive from the State to call the player control even when the defender has a portion of his foot OOB.

I like this directive, and am happy someone from the WA State Office had the courage to get this call right...IMO.

[cmathews]

What is right about a player being OOB and being able to maintain legal guarding position?? If an offensive player goes out of bounds to avoid traffic it is a T. Granted this is because they usually do it on purpose, and the defensive player concentrating on the offense won't know exactly when they are OOB. As for an earlier statement that the player takes up more space on defense, having your legs splayed out and that is where the contact occurs is a blocking foul as well, actually close to tripping. I can see absolutely no logical reason to allow the defense to maintain legal guarding position while OOB. As for waiting until the defense is on the line then lowering a shoulder, that to me is an intentional foul, maybe a T. In all honesty in the past if the defense is on the line, and the offense knew it, the smart play would be to hand the defender the ball and he is out of bounds, yep sounds like a highly intelligent defensive ploy to me....

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by cmathews
What is right about a player being OOB and being able to maintain legal guarding position?? If an offensive player goes out of bounds to avoid traffic it is a T. Granted this is because they usually do it on purpose, and the defensive player concentrating on the offense won't know exactly when they are OOB. As for an earlier statement that the player takes up more space on defense, having your legs splayed out and that is where the contact occurs is a blocking foul as well, actually close to tripping. I can see absolutely no logical reason to allow the defense to maintain legal guarding position while OOB. As for waiting until the defense is on the line then lowering a shoulder, that to me is an intentional foul, maybe a T. In all honesty in the past if the defense is on the line, and the offense knew it, the smart play would be to hand the defender the ball and he is out of bounds, yep sounds like a highly intelligent defensive ploy to me....

...I knew I was going to end up in the middle of this one again...here we go!

This rule does creates a situation that is unfair for the defender (by rule). Defenders play in a position with their feet wider than shoulder width apart, butt down, "head on ball". This means that their stance is wider (laterally) than an offensive player (if you choose to ignore this reality, then I'm not sure if you can understand the rest of this). As they are guarding a dribbler, heading towards a boundary, their lead foot is going to reach the line before the offensive player. This is "textbook", perfect legal guarding position. At any point before the defender's foot touches the boundary, any contact has to either be a no-call or PC. Now, according to this ridiculous FED rule, the defender has to stop before he reaches the boundary in order to maintain legal guarding position--if he touches that line, any contact (other than obviously flagrant/intentional stuff) has to be a block. If he does stop, according to the FED's rules for guarding a moving ball-handler, if the dribbler can get his "head/shoulders" past the defender, the defender assumes responsiblity for that contact as well. If the defender, in a proper defensive stance/position, has to stop before he touches the line, then their is no practical way (within the current rules) for a defender to stop a player from driving past him at any boundary without fouling them.

As far as an offensive player giving the ball to a defender who is out--he certainly can--if he wants a throw-in from that spot. Some teams do like to run special inbound plays to score--I guess this could be their first offensive objective (to get a throw-in at a certain spot?) I also freely admit that if a defender, in perfect legal guarding position (with a foot OOB) reaches out and touches the ball, you have an immediate dead ball--ball goes to the offense at that spot with a throw-in.

I have played (all state in HS, all-conference in College), coached (for 11 years with numerous coaching awards & successful winning teams), and officiated for four years. I am certain that this "injustice" of allowing defenders to leave the boundaries of the court and not allowing the offensive players to do the same is not a problem in the game. I don't know where the push for this rule change/emphasis has come from, but I suspect that it is a misguided attempt by some legalistic, "rule-book" worm (I don't mean that to sound as disparaging as it does!) who read that offensive players weren't allowed to leave the floor and defensive players were and thought "AHA! We've got to fix that!" Hogwash--they've created a situation that is unfair for the defense.

I say call it like they are advocating in WA. There must be some smart guys up there!

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by coachz_216
[B

I say call it like they are advocating in WA. There must be some smart guys up there!

[/B]

Yeah, there's a few of us...but the state still went to Kerry!!