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!

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.

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? :D

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.

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]

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? :rolleyes:

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

Peace

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.

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 <FONT COLOR=blue size=+4>CLEAR</FONT> 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.

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! :)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

The dribbler has the ball.

That one's easy.

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.
[/B][/QUOTE]Rock, when did "common sense" become a part of this particular discussion? Or as a prerequisite for one of the FED's interpretations either? :D

Know what? The problem still is that your state interpreters are telling you that they DON'T want this play called by FED rules. They want it called by their rule instead. However, if everybody in your state calls the play uniformly, then there AIN'T a problem now locally, is there? The problem is, was and always has been trying to attain uniformity on calls from region to region, or state to state, etc. That's what the FED is trying to do by issuing these interpretations. Coaches and players have to know what to expect from us. In this case, they have to know how this play is gonna be called so that they can teach and use the defensive techniques that will conform to the rule as called, not necessarily as it is written. If coaches and players in Washington know how you guys are gonna call this, and it get's called uniformly, then nobody should have any b*tches imo. Where the problem might come into play though is when your teams go into other states, and run into officials that do call the play as written by rule.

Thanks for the discussion--I'll be back.

I've learned alot today & as I transition from being a coach back to being an official, I'll need to learn even more.

Thanks,
ex-Coach

Rock, when did "common sense" become a part of this particular discussion? Or as a prerequisite for one of the FED's interpretations either? :D

Know what? The problem still is that your state interpreters are telling you that they DON'T want this play called by FED rules. They want it called by their rule instead. However, if everybody in your state calls the play uniformly, then there AIN'T a problem now locally, is there? The problem is, was and always has been trying to attain uniformity on calls from region to region, or state to state, etc. That's what the FED is trying to do by issuing these interpretations. Coaches and players have to know what to expect from us. In this case, they have to know how this play is gonna be called so that they can teach and use the defensive techniques that will conform to the rule as called, not necessarily as it is written. If coaches and players in Washington know how you guys are gonna call this, and it get's called uniformly, then nobody should have any b*tches imo. Where the problem might come into play though is when your teams go into other states, and run into officials that do call the play as written by rule. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed...and I don't think the state was saying to disregard the rule - just (as far as what I got out of the presentation)not to be too worried about that foot barely touching a line...aas far as common sense - I think it was BushRef who brought that into the mix, and i vehemently disagreed with that having anything to do with this rule...

Do you really see that as a problem? I have done games from teams in Iowa and Wisconsin and they did not have a coaching box the same as the IHSA and they functioned. I have never had a problem with a state deciding they want to do something specific to their state. Whether it is rules or mechanics that is up to them to decide what is going to be used or ignored. We have a mercy rule that applies to our games. It is not listed in the rulebook and the parameters and application are not listed anywhere. But guess what is going to happen when other states come in a play a basketball game. They will adhere to this rule unless otherwise stated.

Peace

Yes, that's what he's saying. If the dribbler "clears out" with his off arm, or swats away the defender's hand, those are still PC fouls, even if the defender has a foot OOB.

Yeah, I could see this one as maybe being a problem. Coaches box variances, the substitution rule after a foul-out that you guys tried last year and special mercy rules are not really related to what's happening on the floor. Defensive positioning using different concepts could be a problem though. You could have one team that has had it drilled into them that they have to keep their feet inbounds at all times while playing defense; and another team that was coached to try and maintain a defensive guarding position in front of a dribbler without ever worrying about whether they stepped OOB or not while doing so; and you now combine both of those teams with a crew of officials that follows the book and always calls a block if a defender is touching a line when contact occurs. Could be a factor in a key call down the stretch for the team that's used to getting away with standing on an OOB line while playing defense. Could also be a screaming coach too if he's not used to seeing a block called every time there's contact with a defender standing OOB.

Hmmm...but if the player lowers his/her shoulder and plants the defender in the 5th row of bleachers, then it's a block because the foot was oob, but not a block if they "clear out" with the off arm...and someone in an earlier post said this was "common sense"??

Hmmm...but if the player lowers his/her shoulder and plants the defender in the 5th row of bleachers, then it's a block because the foot was oob [/B][/QUOTE]Naw, how about a "T" instead on the defender for going OOB to try and gain an advantage?

Hmmmmm, I think that I might be able to find some language from the FED in the last coupla years that might support that too, come to think of it. :D

Naw, how about a "T" instead on the defender for going OOB to try and gain an advantage?

Hmmmmm, I think that I might be able to find some language from the FED in the last coupla years that might support that too, come to think of it. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

OK, now you're just being a smart-a$$...up till now this has been a very clear, well-defined discussion of the merits of...oh never mind...

Rut, Rut, Rut. You have never let reality affect any of your posts so why should you start now. :rolleyes: I think you are quite aware that I have always been against <b>individuals</b> implementing their own interpretations, not states. My problem has always been with assignors or "powerfl officials" who tell their officials to "do things this way" when they are clearly contrary to accepted NFHS rules and state interpretations.

Z

Naw, how about a "T" instead on the defender for going OOB to try and gain an advantage?

Hmmmmm, I think that I might be able to find some language from the FED in the last coupla years that might support that too, come to think of it. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I support this ruling, unless the defender is the last player left who has not been DQ'ed.

:p

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

Wait a freakin minute Z. I never gave you and "individual" ruling in our previous discussion. I gave you a ruling that was supported and assigned by people that had power to make such a decision. I gave you a mechanic that dealt with what the Head Clinician and Rules Interpreter told all officials to do and you got all over me because it was "not what the NF supported." I was not telling you someone that did not work for the IHSA and just assigned a conference. I am telling you the person that decides these things told us to use a specific mechanic and you came on here and criticized that left and right and now you are saying basically that your state decided to give you guys a ruling and you are supporting it. I personally have no problem with your state's ruling. I do not live there. But I am saying you got on me and my state for doing the very same thing. Even Bob Jenkins told you that is what this individual was hired by the state to do and you dismissed it. Now our state has not told us to ever ignore the rulebook, but there has been commentary on what was common sense or might be likely called from an official's perspective. Our Head Clinician is also the main Rules Interpreter and hires all the clinicians for the State of Illinois in at least football, basketball and baseball. I am sure it is the case in other sports here, but these people give rulings on mechanics and rules when there is something that is not clear.

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

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

Diet or regular?

Different rules for different states ..and different sports
 

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 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. :eek:

Z

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?

Hey guys, I'm back.

Did I miss anything?

Re: Different rules for different states ..and different sports
 

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.

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.

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

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

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

Z

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.

What is right about a player being OOB
 

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....

Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

...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!

Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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

Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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

Z

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

Rain? What rain?

Signed:
East of the Cascades guy.

Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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

Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

[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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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?

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. :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by 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? 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. :D

And that makes you....? :D

Don't push it, Buster!!

Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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!

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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]

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.

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. :D

Re: Different rules for different states ..and different sports
 

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker
[B]Yeah, we were thinking differently. The way I was thinking, your shoulders would have been 3-feet wide too.
:D
Z

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is right about a player being OOB
 

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]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Don't think so.
 

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

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.

Re: Don't think so.
 

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? :confused: If so, the dribblers must be a lot slower than when I played.

Z

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.

Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

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

Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

What'd I miss!?! :D

These last two sentences are direct quotes from your posts. They feel insulting, even if they weren't intended that way. If you want the conversation to stay civil, please don't talk like this any more. It also helps to keep the mindset that others may totally disagree with you and still be capable and successful at what they do. You don't have to assume that anyone who doesn't think the way you do is an idiot or fool. Reasonable, intelligent, mature, successful people can completely and totally disagree about the nature of reality, and never find a resolution. If you doubt that, just look closely at the latest presidential election.

Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

Z, that's too E-Z!

If a coach can teach his defender to step OOB to cut off the dribbler's path, then he can most assuredly teach him that it's against the rules to step OOB, "So don't do it."

Re: Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

If a coach can teach a dribbler not to step oob, she can teach a defender not to. It's not really that difficult of a concept.

Re: Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

When I played defense (which was rare, I admit :D), I was taught to be looking at the defender's torso. If you look at the ball or the feet instead, the offensive player has you beat already. I just don't understand how the defender can now be expected to look down and pick up the sideline when trying to stay with Johnny Quickstep. If Johnny Quickstep sees the defender look down, he's gone. If the defender doesn't look down and Johnny Quickstep sees the defenders foot on the line, he initiates contact for a block (as written in the rules). It just doens't seem very well thought out.

Z

Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

Not that simple. Anyone who has played the game knows that the defense reacts to where the offense goes. As a defender, you are in reaction mode and if B1 looks down to see where his feet are, A1 leaves him in the dust.

Z

In reality, Z, the defender only has to have her foot off the line if there's contact. It's not as though it can never touch the line at all. The dribbler has to be much more careful about where the line is. The defender can be a foot or 18 inches away from the line and still be effectively blocking the dribbler from moving down the line. A good feel for where the line is should be enough. The dribbler needs much more exact feel than that.

Now I'm going to arrogantly claim the last word and walk away from this discussion because I need to go have a life. I'll check back in this evening, for anotoher lesson in coaching.

I just don't understand how the defender can now be expected to look down and pick up the sideline when trying to stay with Johnny Quickstep. If Johnny Quickstep sees the defender look down, he's gone. If the defender doesn't look down and Johnny Quickstep sees the defenders foot on the line, he initiates contact for a block (as written in the rules). It just doens't seem very well thought out.

[/B][/QUOTE]As was pointed out before, the defender really doesn't have to pick up the sideline. All he/she has to do is get within 3 feet of the sideline and maintain LGP.

R4-7-2(c)-- <i>"There must be reasonable space between....a defensive player and a boundary line to continue in his/her path. If there is less than 3 feet of space, the dribbler has the greater responsibility for the contact"</i>.

Z, the rules already give the defender 3 feet in-bounds from a line to get their outside foot down on defense. Why should they be given the OOB area on top of that also?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't think so.
 

Z,
A different perspective [from a "shooter"] is certainly welcome.

Now, on the other hand, some players played defense. (<I>see right-handed balls reference. <small> [Uh..., dont bother. :rolleyes:</small>]</I>).
Johnny Quickstep was forced to go where the defense wanted him to go. If he happened to be quicker, the defender had to get somewhere ...sooner.
Peripheral vision will take care of locating the sideline.
Anticipation will take care of Johnny.
Offensively challenged players know this.
I know. :)

mick