Washington State Interpretation Mtg.

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by rockyroad

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

I noticed that...can't you do something about that?!?

[zebraman]

Originally posted by coachz_216

I noticed that...can't you do something about that?!?
[/B]

All the rain up here makes the whole state turn blue.

Z

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by zebraman

All the rain up here makes the whole state turn blue.

Z [/B]

As long as you guys get the block/charge call right on the baseline--I won't hold the whole blue/red thing against you!

Basketball is much more important that politics!

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by zebraman

All the rain up here makes the whole state turn blue.

Z [/B]

Rain? What rain?

Signed:
East of the Cascades guy.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by coachz_216

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).

was that really necessary coachz?? I didn't ignore any reality, but the only thing that makes them wider is their legs and feet. If that is the only thing that contacts an offensive player and there is a foul called, it will be a block. It is the torso contact that gets you a charge not the legs and feet. You need to spend some more time in the book though, because if there isn't enough "space" for the offensive player to go through they are responsible for the contact.

and you guys should be proud of VP Cheney, because as he so eloquently pointed out he once again delivered the state of Wyoming to the Bush-Cheney ticket LOL

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by coachz_216


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.

Actually, this ISN"T legal defense. Feet need to be at roughly the same width as the shoulders, wider is not legal. And I can't see that it would be so difficult to just glance down and see whether my foot is on the line or not. Even if the defender leaves as much as 6" there's no way the dribbler is going to get through legally. I can't see that this rule really inhibits a defender too badly.

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Actually, this ISN"T legal defense. Feet need to be at roughly the same width as the shoulders, wider is not legal.

Can I get a rule reference on that Rainmaker?

Z

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zebraman

Originally posted by rainmaker

Actually, this ISN"T legal defense. Feet need to be at roughly the same width as the shoulders, wider is not legal.

Can I get a rule reference on that Rainmaker?

She doesn't have to explain herself, she's a woman.

She also just hit 4000 posts, which means that she is a yappy woman.

[Back In The Saddle]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by zebraman

She doesn't have to explain herself, she's a woman.

She also just hit 4000 posts, which means that she is a yappy woman.

And that makes you....?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BushRef
Isn't being yappy a pre requisite to being a woman?

Don't push it, Buster!!

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Actually, this ISN"T legal defense. Feet need to be at roughly the same width as the shoulders, wider is not legal. And I can't see that it would be so difficult to just glance down and see whether my foot is on the line or not. Even if the defender leaves as much as 6" there's no way the dribbler is going to get through legally. I can't see that this rule really inhibits a defender too badly.

First, it's not illegal for a defender to have his feet wider than shoulder width apart. If it were then ALL good defenders would be illegal all the time. Proper defensive technique has feet wider than shoulder width (actually, for some players, depending on their physical abilities, the wider--the better. Every good coach teaches "low & wide" in some way, shape, or form if they teach good defensive technique). It is true that contact with the knees, legs, etc, that are outside the frame of their body is a foul...hence it is important that a defender be allowed to move laterally (without concern for where their feet are) so as to maintain their body in front of the offensive player--not just an extended leg.

Second, Rule 10.6.2 states "...If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent..." If a defensive player, properly taught, is in perfect defensive position, playing in a textbook, defensive stance, and stops with his foot just short of a boundary (trying to abide by this ridiculous rule), there is more than adequate room for a skilled dribbler to take a line directly over his outstretched leg and "...have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent..."

Again--a poorly thought out rule that creates an impossible situation for a defender--even if he is doing everything perfectly!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by coachz_216
Second, Rule 10.6.2 states "...If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent..." If a defensive player, properly taught, is in perfect defensive position, playing in a textbook, defensive stance, and stops with his foot just short of a boundary (trying to abide by this ridiculous rule), there is more than adequate room for a skilled dribbler to take a line directly over his outstretched leg and "...have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent..."

Again--a poorly thought out rule that creates an impossible situation for a defender--even if he is doing everything perfectly!

But, some rule in 4 (iirc -- I'm without my books today -- somewehre around 4-7) says that if there's insufficient space between two defenders, or between a defender and a boundary line, then the offensive player is responsible for the contact. That's the rule to apply in this situation.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by coachz_216

First, it's not illegal for a defender to have his feet wider than shoulder width apart. If it were then ALL good defenders would be illegal all the time. Proper defensive technique has feet wider than shoulder width (actually, for some players, depending on their physical abilities, the wider--the better. Every good coach teaches "low & wide" in some way, shape, or form if they teach good defensive technique). It is true that contact with the knees, legs, etc, that are outside the frame of their body is a foul...hence it is important that a defender be allowed to move laterally (without concern for where their feet are) so as to maintain their body in front of the offensive player--not just an extended leg.

Second, Rule 10.6.2 states "...If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent..." If a defensive player, properly taught, is in perfect defensive position, playing in a textbook, defensive stance, and stops with his foot just short of a boundary (trying to abide by this ridiculous rule), there is more than adequate room for a skilled dribbler to take a line directly over his outstretched leg and "...have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent..."

Again--a poorly thought out rule that creates an impossible situation for a defender--even if he is doing everything perfectly!

Coach -- I'm a little puzzled by your assertions. I've seen a lot of really good defense without the legs being wider than the shoulders. I'm not sure wider is better in every case. Furthermore, as to legality, you're right that it's not illegal to have the legs spread clear into the splits as long as there's no contact. But around here we are instructed to define the wide leg spread as tripping, if the leg is the only contact. Also, defense is not responsible for any contact should defender have legal guarding position and be less than three feet from the line. Any contact is PC or nothing. Lastly, I'm having trouble seeing a defender maintaining a legal position with his leg so outstretched that the dribbler "hurdles over" it,and I'm having trouble seeing a dribbler with enough moxie to pull that off. It seems to me that a defender with feet set right at shoulder width facing dribbler, one foot maybe three-six inches from sideline, is pretty solid defense. Stepping on the line doesn't help the position in any way.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

But, some rule in 4 (iirc -- I'm without my books today -- somewehre around 4-7) says that if there's insufficient space between two defenders, or between a defender and a boundary line, then the offensive player is responsible for the contact. That's the rule to apply in this situation.

True...and it even gives a distance, I believe, of 3 feet or less between the defender and the boundary line.

And, kind of like your porno reference in another thread...if it looks like a charge, it probably is a charge...I'll know it when I see it (At least in WA state) even if the defender's little toe is on the line.

[Edited by RookieDude on Nov 11th, 2004 at 12:00 PM]

[zebraman]

Coachz_216 makes a good point though. A1 is dribbling and B1 is playing great defense. A1 dribbles near the sideline and B1 stays right with him. B1, playing great defense, has his feet wider than shoulder width and is in the "chair position." Because B1 is playing great defense, he's watching A1's torso (as he was coached) and doesn't notice that his foot has now touched the out-of-bounds line. A1 causes torso-to-torso contact and displaces B1. Official calls a block on B1 by rule. Just doesn't seem right.

Z

P.S. to Rainmaker. Coaches are constantly telling their players to get lower and wider. A defender that has their feet shoulder width apart is pretty much standing straight up and is going to get beat every time.