Interpretation.

[blindzebra]

I think this is more of a case where someone did not say, "Oh, oh we have a problem."

By definition B1 is OOB, so under the rules both cases should now be a violation for leaving the floor.

The case book has not caught up with the new rule and the last new rule.

That said, there is no justification for using one illegal act to allow another.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That still doesn't change the fact that the case book play sez that the defender is OOB with one foot on the line, or that R7-1-1 is also saying that the defender is OOB with one foot on the line.

Your interpreter is saying however that a player with one foot on a side or end line is in-bounds, and is trying to interpret another rule using that erroneous assumption.

Now, either the NFHS rule and case books are wrong or your interpreter is wrong.

I'm not sure I agree with where you're taking this. I think you want to call a violation on B1 when his foot is on the line because A1 subsequently lost the ball without contact. Are you saying B1 is *unauthorized* to "leave the court" (have his foot on the line) because A1 lost the ball? Or do you call this immediately? More generally, do you call it whenever ANY player tippy-toes on the line?

FWIW, I got nuthin here without contact.

[mj]

Originally posted by mick

On the line, or 20" over the line, same ol', same 'ol. (as JR pointed out.) The spirit, of being 1/2-in or 1/2-out, 7/8-in or 1/8-out, does not bring with it a distance measurement. If the players were not allowed to step on or over the line without penalty, the gyms would have boards (without the ice or sticks).

mick

I got nothing here. All the examples I have seen involving this penalty change deal with running around screens.

Would you have called this play a T last year?

[Camron Rust]

Our state interpreter clearly stated in our annual clinic that a defender who has a foot on the line while playing normal defense has NOT violated. This is supported by casebook 4.23.3B where the defender is called for the block. If it were to be a violation, the defender could never be guilty of the block since the ball would be dead the moment the defender stepped on the line.

Applying that to this play, there is no violation. The steal is legal since the player that stole the ball was not OOB.

Stepping on/over a boundary line when playing otherwise legal defense only has the ramification of loosing LGP.

"Leaving the court" is not equivalent to being OOB. The purpose of the leaving the court rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage that would/could have not been obtained by remaining inbounds. In this play, whether the defender has a foot 1/4" inbounds or 12" OOB has no material impact on the play. The impact on the dribbler was not changed.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Dec 1st, 2005 at 01:51 PM]

[mick]

Originally posted by mj

I got nothing here. All the examples I have seen involving this penalty change deal with running around screens.

Would you have called this play a T last year?
[/B]

No, mj. I surely wouldn't have called a technical, or any defensive violation, last year, or this year.
mick

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That still doesn't change the fact that the case book play sez that the defender is OOB with one foot on the line, or that R7-1-1 is also saying that the defender is OOB with one foot on the line.

Your interpreter is saying however that a player with one foot on a side or end line is in-bounds, and is trying to interpret another rule using that erroneous assumption.

Now, either the NFHS rule and case books are wrong or your interpreter is wrong.

There is an asterisk (*) in front of 4.23.3B, indicating (according to the Foreward) that the play either new or modified and "All material has been brought up to date to correlate with the current rules."

This case is definitely different than last year's case book. If you want to say that it is written wrong, fine. But the ruling in the case book here definitely is not consistent with 9-3-2. Assuming this case is correct, the FED seems to have some sort of distinction, otherwise, this would not be a blocking foul on the defender but a violation. And the strict wording of 9-3-2 is "leave the floor" not be OOB.

I guess I am not arguing what OOB means, but what "leave the floor" means. All I put forth was a general rule of thumb our interpreter came up with - based on the rule and existing interpretations. Note that I put forth that interpretation as "on court" and "off court" not "in bounds" and "out of bounds." Hopefully it is not too far of a stretch to believe that "court" could mean "floor".

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
This case is definitely different than last year's case book.

It's new to the casebook, but I believe it's exactly the same as the case that was posted on the FED's website after the new rule came into effect last year.

the strict wording of 9-3-2 is "leave the floor"

So it's a violation every time somebody jumps now?

[RookieDude]

FWIW...we had a past WA State Clinician and current rules interpreter visit our association Monday...he stated that a defender's foot OOB is not the same as "leaving the court"...he said DO NOT call this a violation on the defender, that is not the intent of the rule.