Washington State Interpretation Mtg.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by zebraman
1) 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.

The rationale put forth by the FED is that the you can only have LGP if you're in-bounds. OOB = always illegal defense without exception. Might not seem right, but dem's the rules. Except in Washington.

[gsf23]

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??

I think the emphasis for basketball is because the fans are much closer to the players and coaches than in football game. Probably a lot more profanity can easily be heard at a B-Ball game than at a FB game.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by zebraman

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.

He won't get beat, if he's moving his feet (rhyme unintentional!). I certainly can't see that going wider when standing straight up helps much. It seems to me that if someone is standing straight up and then keeps spreading the legs wider and wider, it's going to get harder and harder to move. It's the bending of the legs that gives the lower, more effective, more mobile stance, not the spreading of the legs. Coaches yell at their kids, "Sit down!" not "Spread out!"

But then, too, perhaps we're defining shoulder width differently. I'm 6 feet tall with a "solid" build. When I stand as wide as I think legal, I've got about 2 or 2-1/2 feet of space between my feet, maybe 3, if I'm moving. Going wider than that wouldn't even be useful, I wouldn't think, except to trip or illegally impede the dribbler.

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker
[B]

Originally posted by zebraman

But then, too, perhaps we're defining shoulder width differently. I'm 6 feet tall with a "solid" build. When I stand as wide as I think legal, I've got about 2 or 2-1/2 feet of space between my feet, maybe 3, if I'm moving. Going wider than that wouldn't even be useful, I wouldn't think, except to trip or illegally impede the dribbler.

Yeah, we were thinking differently. The way I was thinking, your shoulders would have been 3-feet wide too.

Z

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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.

I was a very successful college & hs coach for the past 11 years. I would say the cornerstone of my success as a coach has been my teaching on how to be an effective defender. Proper defensive stance (for most perimeter guarding situations) has the defender's feet significantly wider than shoulder width, butt down, weight on the balls of the feet, etc. As I said before, how wide depends on the individual (size/athleticism). The goal of the stance is to maintain a wide base with outstanding balance to enable the defender to change directions as quickly as possible. If you can't understand that this is how proper defense is taught (not just by me, but by almost every coach at every level) in the game, then I'm not sure that this discussion need to continue.

I agree (and have stated before) that any contact with a leg, knee, etc. extended outside the frame of the body is a defensive foul. Hence, the saying "move your feet" on defense--you have to move laterally to keep you body in front of the offensive player so as to ensure that any contact is either a no-call or PC. The "defensive tool" of the defender is his body--not his leg. In order for him to be able to play defense from boundary to boundary, he needs to be allowed to have a foot OOB when he is very near the boundary. Otherwise, there is no way to place his BODY in front of an offensive player who is driving along the bondary.

As for your assertion that the "defense is not responsible for any contact should defender have legal guarding position and be less than three feet from the line..." I would like to know the rule book reference for than rule.

As for "having trouble seeing a dribbler with enough moxie to pull that off..." Then you must not be officiating HS or above basketball. I was an all-stater in HS and I can assure you that I would have readily "attacked" a defenders out-stretched lead leg knowing that he couldn't take another step to cut me off & that the contact was (by rule) going to be a foul on him. I have also been fortunate enough to coach players (even my HS players) who would have undoubdtedly done the same. As a coach--I would make a point of teaching it (especially to my better players). I would agree that JRHI girls probably aren't skilled enough to take advantage of flaws in the rules--but quality HS players, who are well-coached most certainly will!

[Edited by coachz_216 on Nov 11th, 2004 at 12:50 PM]

[gsf23]

Originally posted by rainmaker

He won't get beat, if he's moving his feet (rhyme unintentional!). I certainly can't see that going wider when standing straight up helps much. It seems to me that if someone is standing straight up and then keeps spreading the legs wider and wider, it's going to get harder and harder to move. It's the bending of the legs that gives the lower, more effective, more mobile stance, not the spreading of the legs. Coaches yell at their kids, "Sit down!" not "Spread out!"

Yes, the bending of the legs does give you the more mobile, stable stance, but try dropping your butt and bending your knees while keeping your feet just shoulder width apart. You won't have much mobility, balance or power, but if you spread those legs out, now you have a solid base to work from. Wider is better.

Just try this, lower yourself, bend your knees and keep your feet shoulder width apart then have someone in front of you give you a push on your shoulders while trying to keep your balance. Now do the same thing but spread your feet out about 6 inces to a foot past your shoulders and have them give you the same push, lot harder to knock you over.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by coachz_216

[/B]

I was a very successful college & hs coach for the past 11 years.

If you can't understand that this is how proper defense is taught (not just by me, but by almost every coach at every level) in the game, then I'm not sure that this discussion need to continue.

As for your assertion that the "defense is not responsible for any contact should defender have legal guarding position and be less than three feet from the line..." I would like to know the rule book reference for than rule.


As for "having trouble seeing a dribbler with enough moxie to pull that off..." Then you must not be officiating HS or above basketball. I was an all-stater in HS and I can assure you that I would have readily "attacked" a defenders out-stretched lead leg knowing that he couldn't take another step to cut me off & that the contact was (by rule) going to be a foul on him. I have also been fortunate enough to coach players (even my HS players) who would have undoubdtedly done the same. As a coach--I would make a point of teaching it (especially to my better players). I would agree that JRHI girls probably aren't skilled enough to take advantage of flaws in the rules--but quality HS players, who are well-coached most certainly will!

[/B][/QUOTE]You know, for a guy that very obviously does NOT know the rules, you just made a whole bunch of smug, self-serving statements above. You can quote us your resume from here to next year if you want, coach, but that don't mean squat if you don't know dickall about the rules. And it also doesn't mean that we like or appreciate know-nothing coaches that come in here and insult our fellow officials or talk down to them or us.

Btw, the rule book reference that you were asking about above about "defense not responsible for contact should the defender have LGP and be within 3 feet of a line" is NFHS rule 4-7-2(c). It's been in the book well before your all-state years too. Imagine that, eh? Why don't you buy a rule book and read it- before you crap on the people who really do know what they're talking about?

Lah me!

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I was a very successful college & hs coach for the past 11 years.

If you can't understand that this is how proper defense is taught (not just by me, but by almost every coach at every level) in the game, then I'm not sure that this discussion need to continue.

As for your assertion that the "defense is not responsible for any contact should defender have legal guarding position and be less than three feet from the line..." I would like to know the rule book reference for than rule.


As for "having trouble seeing a dribbler with enough moxie to pull that off..." Then you must not be officiating HS or above basketball. I was an all-stater in HS and I can assure you that I would have readily "attacked" a defenders out-stretched lead leg knowing that he couldn't take another step to cut me off & that the contact was (by rule) going to be a foul on him. I have also been fortunate enough to coach players (even my HS players) who would have undoubdtedly done the same. As a coach--I would make a point of teaching it (especially to my better players). I would agree that JRHI girls probably aren't skilled enough to take advantage of flaws in the rules--but quality HS players, who are well-coached most certainly will!

[/B]

You know, for a guy that very obviously does NOT know the rules, you just made a whole bunch of smug, self-serving statements above. You can quote us your resume from here to next year if you want, coach, but that don't mean squat if you don't know dickall about the rules. And it also doesn't mean that we like or appreciate know-nothing coaches that come in here and insult our fellow officials or talk down to them or us.

Btw, the rule book reference that you were asking about above about "defense not responsible for contact should the defender have LGP and be within 3 feet of a line" is NFHS rule 4-7-2(c). It's been in the book well before your all-state years too. Imagine that, eh? Why don't you buy a rule book and read it- before you crap on the people who really do know what they're talking about?

Lah me! [/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you for the rule-book reference. I do need to learn more about the rules. As for you assertion about my "smug, self-serving statements", I didn't make them to impress anyone--I simply was replying to a person who seemed to think I didn't have an understanding of the game. I was trying to point out some of my background to show them that my views of the game don't come from just an "interested fan's" perspective. I do know this game. I don't have the rule book memorized. I'm returning to officiating after 11 years of coaching and I do need to improve my rules knowledge.

I'm glad to know the 4.7.2 reference--it actually makes the block/charge call in these situations seem to be an easier one to make. All of my posts regarding this rule are not made to debate that it is a rule or how it has to be called if called "strictly by the book". I'm just trying to point out that, in this case, IMO the Fed has made a bad rule and it seems to me that the best remedy (for now), is for officials to exercise common sense and not unduly penalize a defender for stepping out of bounds to maintain proper guarding position just because the Fed can't figure out that in order to maintain proper position near a boundary, a defender has to be allowed to step OOB.

[rainmaker]

I think I was mis understood in my references to "shoulder width." Mayybe I just have huge shoulders. Regardless, if the foot is significantly outside the "cone of verticality" and especially if that foot gets to the sideline before the body, as coachz describes, so that the dribbler's contact will be with the leg or foot and not the body, then it's not legal defense, regardless of the measurement of the width. I just lcan't see that requiring the defender to keep his feet off the line is all that significant.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by coachz_216
I'm glad to know the 4.7.2 reference--

FYI -- it's 4-7-2 Dashes for rules; dots for cases.

And, we all had this discussion last year. You missed out on all the fun.

That said, it came into play approximately never in my games last year.

[mick]

Originally posted by coachz_216
...in order to maintain proper position near a boundary, a defender has to be allowed to step OOB.

coachz_216,
I do not think that is necessary, if the defender got established a half-step earlier.
We should not award a tardy defender.
mick

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

FYI -- it's 4-7-2 Dashes for rules; dots for cases.

And, we all had this discussion last year. You missed out on all the fun.

That said, it came into play approximately never in my games last year.

Thanks again--I'm learning something every day. I just wish that some of the people posting could maintain some civility about it! I'm not trying to insult anyone.

Last season, I probably saw 2 or 3 times that officials called blocks on what would have otherwise definitely been PC--It's not a call that happens all the time, that's why I think the FED has made an error in changing the rule & in making such a big deal about it's enforcement.

I would like to see a bunch of officials & coaches start writing/emailing/calling the FED and asking them to rethink this one. I didn't talk to a single coach or official last year who thought this was a good rule.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by mick
coachz_216,
I do not think that is necessary, if the defender got established a half-step earlier.
We should not award a tardy defender.
mick

Mick,

Do you think the defender should have to get there early enough to have time to look down and make sure he doesn't put a foot on the line? If so, the dribblers must be a lot slower than when I played.

Z

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by coachz_216
[/B]

1)As for you assertion about my "smug, self-serving statements", I didn't make them to impress anyone--I simply was replying to a person who seemed to think I didn't have an understanding of the game. I was trying to point out some of my background to show them that my views of the game don't come from just an "interested fan's" perspective. I do know this game.

2) I'm just trying to point out that, in this case, IMO the Fed has made a bad rule and it seems to me that the best remedy (for now), is for officials to exercise common sense and not unduly penalize a defender for stepping out of bounds to maintain proper guarding position just because the Fed can't figure out that in order to maintain proper position near a boundary, a defender has to be allowed to step OOB.

[/B][/QUOTE]1) That "person" wasn't talking about your understanding of the "game". She was talking about your understanding of a "rule". There's a helluva big difference right there . That "person" may not know as much about the "game" as you do, but I guarantee you that she knows more about the "rules" than you do.

2) Whether the rule is "good" or "bad" isn't the point. The point is that it is a very explicit rule and we, as officials, have been told by the NFHS that they want it called in a very explicit manner as very explicitly specified by them. That's a whole bunch of "explicits" right there! When it comes to calling something by rule, the only choices that we really have are (1) a no-call or (2) calling it right. We don't have the option of making up our own rules, which is what you are basically suggesting. You're talking about teaching proper defensive techniques to your players. Well, what happens if you teach them those proper techniques,and your defensive players are now getting the fouls called on them because the officials are saying that they don't like or agree with your techniques and their "common sense" is telling them to call all of the fouls on your defenders until they change. That's not really much different than what your suggesting above, imo.

[mick]

Originally posted by zebraman

Mick,

Do you think the defender should have to get there early enough to have time to look down and make sure he doesn't put a foot on the line? If so, the dribblers must be a lot slower than when I played.

Z

C'mon, Z.
If the defender has to be thinking about that, his foot should be right in front of the [end of the] bench.
mick