Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by TimTaylor
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by TimTaylor
Not when the ball is in the hands of a player for inbounding and the instruction is to the defender guarding the inbound pass..... which is the only situation where I use "don't reach".
|
"Straight up," is better in that situation anyway because you are talking about a plane.
|
I disagree - the warning & subsequent T are for reaching across the boundary line - "don't reach" is about as clear as you can get.
[Edited by TimTaylor on Jan 17th, 2005 at 05:48 PM]
|
No the warning is for BREAKING the plane, not reaching across the plane.
When a player hears straight up, their reaction is normally to put their hands up and stop leaning into the plane.
The word REACHING should NEVER be used by an official, EVER. [/B]
|
You might want to read casebook 7.6.3.C & 9.2.11.B - the specific terminology used by NFHS is "reaches through". The warning for violation of 7.6.3.C is for delay - boundary line violation, but the action that precipitates the warning is reaching through the boundary line.
Also see items 3 & 4 of the penalty section at the end of 9-2 in the rule book - both use the specific terminology "reaches through the throw-in boundary".
Making eye contact with a defender bellying up to the sideline and saying "don't reach" before handing the ball to the thrower is clear and unambiguous - and it works. You can use what you want, but since that is the specific terminology used by NFHS, it will continue to be my terminology of choice until they decide to change it.
Tue Jan 18, 2005, 02:46am
Hybrid Mode
