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

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.

<I>
so they are going against NFHS RULES!!!!
</I>
<B>
Yes. Their justification is that a defensive player staying with an offensive player who dribbles near the out-of-bounds line shouldn't have to look down to make sure their feet stay in. Also, they are concerned with making it "open season" on a defender who steps on the line and then the offender can cream them. Our state's executive director has consistently preached "no rough play" over the past few years and this is in line with that.
</B>

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.
<I>
ISN'T THAT WHAT WE DO ANYWAYS!!
</I>
<B>
I remember a thread recently where there was a lot of confusion about whether the time-outs ran successively or concurrently.
</B>
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.
<I>
WHICH TEAM ARE YOU GOING TO CALL THE "T" ON??? HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE WHO'S TEAM THEY ARE CHEERING FOR??
</I>
<B>
No, this interpretation is about PLAYERS or COACHES who use profanity which can be heard by spectators, not spectators who use profanity. Spectators who use profanity should be addressed by game management.
</b>
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. :-)
<i>
CALL THAT "T" AND YOU WON'T MAKE IT TO THE LOCKER ROOM...HAHAHA
</i>
<B>
I think it's the right move to make that the coaches responsibility. I think it's ridiculous that refs should have to worry about a player going to get a drink of water in the hall.

</b>
Z

WOW!!

You guys are specifically ignoring a RULE. What's the rationale behind that? This isn't an interpretation of a rule on the part of your rules people. You're making up your own rule. It's telling your guys very explicitly to NOT follow an NFHS ruling. As a matter of fact the FED still has the interpretation posted that says that you guys are completely wrong. Here's the link- Check out #13(b):

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...Category_ID=29

There's a lotta rules that I don't like either, but I can't change them just because I don't agree with them.

WOW!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 9th, 2004 at 01:07 PM]

Just an opinion from a former coach (5 years as a men's college coach/6 years as a boy's HS coach) who is now going back to officiating, strict interpretation of several of the rules that don't relate directly to what is taking place on the court (ie. benches, coaches, etc) is normally a telltale sign of a poor/inexperienced official. I know that most of the "better" officials that I have worked with in the past 11 years have had the attitude "you stay out of my way & I'll stay out of yours" with respect to the coaching box and/or players on the bench. Officials who worry about whether a coach stands a little too much, or whether players spend too much time up cheering are focusing too much attention on the bench and not enough on the floor.

I agree with the previous post, that any rules which place responsibility for bench conduct/decorm on officials is ridiciulous.

I'm just the messenger JR. Don't shoot me.

Z

Never any intent to "shoot" you, Z. You know that. And I've also been around long enough to know that you had better do exactly what your interpreter tells you to do- at least if you feel like doing some games every now and then. I just can't understand how they can issue that ruling though. It's not an interpretation of an existing rule; it's telling their constituents to IGNORE an existing rule in favor of their own strictly local rule. Now you got every state in the Union calling it one way, except for Washington who's calling it a different way. Don't make sense to me.

#1 if they are out of bounds (one foot on the line, whatever) they can not have LEGAL GUARDING POSITION, so you can't have a charge!!! But if they, as you say, CREAM THEM, maybe you could have a flagrant on the offensive player if it is bad enough..

#2 they are concurrent time outs

#3 i thought that was a "t" anyways for profanity by players/coach

#4 game management

I think other states do some of this too based on what I've read here. Doesn't one state start games with a coin flip rather than a jump ball? Don't some states use a shot clock which isn't approved by NFHS? I have a huge problem with <b>individual </b>interpreters, officials or assignors trying to implement their own ideas but I don't have problems with it if it's at a statewide level. The NFHS rule book contains the following statement:
<I>
Member associations of the NFHS independently make decisions regarding compliance with or modification of these playing rules for the student-athletes in their respective states
</I>


Our state's executive director is a former basketball official and he has made directives in the past which don't always follow NFHS rules. One he made a few years ago concerned block/charge calls. His statement was, "if there is a contact and a body hits the floor, there had better be a whistle." He is also famous for attending the officials meetings prior to state tournaments and saying, "Don't take advantage/disadvantage too far... a foul is a foul is a foul." Officials who don't heed his advice don't last long at state tournaments.

Personally, I've seen a far cleaner, far prettier, far more finesse game in this state since he has made his emphasis clear.

Right or wrong, the game is much better here for his efforts, IMHO.

Z

I think maybe we're getting a little too worked up on this oob/PC call...basically what we are being told here in WA is that if the defender gets steam-rolled, we aren't going to call it a block simply because his/her left big toe was touching a line. That's not the intent of the rule...if the defender set up with their foot 6" oob, and has time to move back inbounds but doesn't then they get what they deserve, but (as we were told) don't stop to look down at the defenders foot when the offensive player lowers the shoulder and creams the defender...pretty much a common sense kind of thing...

I don't know rocky... the interpretation on the NFHS website is pretty clear that it's a block even if the foot was only "touching" the line:

<I>SITUATION 13: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.
</I>
Z

Rocky, that sureashell IS the intent of the rule, whether any of us or you agree with them or not. The FED has posted the way that they want this play called on their web site, and they've posted it more than once. They changed the rules language in R4-23-3(a) to emphasize that the defender MUST have inbounds status too. As a matter of fact, they re-posted the exact same case play 2 days ago. If you go back to the link that I posted, take a look at the bottom of the left-hand column. You will see " 2004-05 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations- Release Date: 11/7/03". Click on that and look at Situation 7(a). That was the first time that it was posted and again it says that if the defender has one foot only <font color = red>touching</font> the OOB boundary line, the ruling is that it HAS to be a blocking foul if contact is made. It states very plainly that B1 may NOT be touching OOB. The FED couldn't have made this call any easier or plainer.

Call it what you want, podner, but the FED has issued their interpretation of this play, and your state interpreters are now telling your officials NOT to follow the FED interpretation. Correct?



[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 9th, 2004 at 02:45 PM]

I agree that the Fed is determined to have this called this way--they have made it very clear. I also know that I haven't heard a compelling argument for why this is so important. They always say something to the effect that "offensive players aren't allowed to leave the floor to gain an advantage, so defensive players shouldn't be allowed to either..." --hogwash! I'm not sure what legalist on the rules committee is making such a fuss about this, but it's arguing over something irrelevant.

As a coach, I talked to my players about the rule and told them that we weren't even going to worry about it. When a good defender is in a legal guarding position, sliding legally to cut off an offensive player's penetration, they occupy a wider place on the floor. Consequently, when they near the sideline the defender's foot will reach the boundary first--by saying that he forfeits his legal guarding position because he touched the line is ridiculous. I told our players not to worry about the boundaries, just play like we always do. If the official calls it--so be it. A good official is going to look at each play individually and decide which way to go. 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.

I understand that the rules committee is trying to get consistency with the on-the-court/off-the-court thing, but I think they are sorely mistaken on this one. Having defensive players leaving the court to maintain legal guarding position was not a problem that needed corrected.

Oh well--life goes on...

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...

Sounds like I would like basketball (coaching & officiating) more in WA than in KS!