NFHS rules only.

Al is dribbling down the sideline in the front court at the foul line extended. B1 is defending and causes A1 to pull up their dribble by straddling the sideline (one foot inbound and one foot out of bounds) effectively shutting down any dribbling lane. There is no contact but when A1 pulls up their dribble, B2 comes from behind and steals the ball from A1. Is it a violation under the new NFHS rules to have one foot off of the court or do you need to put both feet off the court for an unauthorized reason for leaving the court?

I would say that this would be a judgement call. If as you say they are completely straddling the line, meaning that they voluntarily went out of bounds to stop the player it should be a violation per the new rule. However, I would think that if this same play occurs and the defender just happens to put their foot on the line then I probably wouldn't call the violation.

If others have case plays that differ my interpretation please post so I can change my thinking on this.

We discussed this in our association and determined:

One foot oob = on court
Two feet oob = off court

Since playing defense in this manner seems to be acceptable (even though the defender gave up LGP), our rules interpreter asked us to interpret it this way. I don't know if this is only for us locally or if direction was given from the State. At least we have a guideline to call it consistantly.

[Edited by Ref in PA on Dec 1st, 2005 at 11:18 AM]

B1 is OOB by definition- R7-1-1. There's no difference between being partially or completely OOB. You're just OOB.

B1 gained an illegal advantage by being OOB. The act allowed a teammate to steal the ball. That meets the purpose and intent of new R9-3-2 as far as I'm concerned. Call the violation on B1.

Suppose in the same situation, A1 hadn't stopped, but continued and made contact with B1. The result would (usually) be a blocking foul, and not a violation. See 4.23.3B

Assuming (and this might not be a valid assumption) that the NFHS did not leave the case in the book in error, I think we can assume that one foot OOB is not a violation on the defense, and your play stands.

Next time you discuss it, hopefully someone will point out that determination is completely wrong as per rule 7-1-1.

Would you have used the same definition if A1 had kept dribbling and then run into B1? Kinda contrary to case book play 4.23.3SitB(a), isn't it?

Methinks your rules interpreter needs someone to interpret the rules for him.

Seems like a stretch to call a violation for inadvertently stepping on the line. No call on the steal.
mick

I don't read this that B inadvertantly stepped on the line. It appears as though he set up over the line on purpose. I could imagine an interpreter going either way on this situation, but I think JR's point is pretty solid.

I think there's some latitude here since the new rule talks about "leaving the court" instead of simply being out of bounds.

Of course, if B1 is standing with one foot out of bounds and steals the ball, then I give the ball to A for the out of bounds violation.

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 cannot argue that by a strict interpretation of the rule that a violation should be called. Yet 4.23.3 Sitch B is still in the case book. It is the play where the defender has a foot touching oob. The ruling is not a violation on the defender for being oob but a blocking foul. If that is the case, it seems the FED is not using a strict interpretation in this case.

This play was discussed specifically and our guidelines came out of this discussion. If/when 4.23.3 B changes, I am sure we will change our definition.

Just another voice on the side of . . .
 

I'm always looking for ways to assert generalizations that predict 'interpretations'. The Rules Book could be 1/2 as long, 2wice as clear . . . and some people would be out of a job . . .

In that spirit, IMHO there is no judgment called for here, nor in any other case that involves being out-of-bounds. The boundary lines are out of bounds. You aren't just a little bit on the line when you turn the ball over for stepping on a line while you dribble . . .

I can assure you that this did not come from the PIAA. I am a rule interpreter and have gotten nothing as to this from the state. Now if your interpreter has an inside track on the first bulletin....;)

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

This is not the first time our interpreter has come up with an interpretation that is, well, stretching the limits. Personally, I am not bothered by this interp compared to some of the others he has stated.

Now, do you consider the case 4.23.3 sitB to be wrong - should it be a violation instead of a foul?

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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".

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.

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

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.