Interpretation.

[WinterWillie]

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.

[Ref in PA]

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]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WinterWillie
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?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by WinterWillie
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?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
We discussed this in our association and determined:

One foot oob = on court

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by mick

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.

[Lotto]

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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.

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

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Jerry Blum
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.

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 . . .

[tmp44]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
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]

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....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ref in PA

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.

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.

[Ref in PA]

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?