I don't think it's necessarily a stupid interpretation. What I do think is stupid is the fact that it's only an interpretation. I think that if the the women's game (or the men eventually) want the play called this way, they should put down a semi-circle to define exactly where "under the basket" is. Yes, it looks more NBA-ish, but at least it removes the guesswork for the officials. Put in a "Restricted Area" rule in the definitions and the markings on the floor and make it consistent. JMO

Thanks for the link although it needs one more i in www.eofficials.com

Oops...did it help? (with the extra i, that is)

DJ, I found the interpretation of this play in the Officiating program manual on the NCAA site. However, it says the exact same thing that all heart posted in his second post in this thread. It's word for word. and it doesn't say anything about a secondary defender. So I'm confused by that as well.

All I can say is that from the first day that this rule came out, we were told (over and over again) the exact interpretation I have given...I know that there were several of the Memos from the NCAA that explained it all. That's why I sent All Heart to the archives at eofficials.com (maybe the NCAA has an archive of memos at their site also?).

Usually, in my experience, it's a secondary defender that will move over and camp out directly under the basket. The primary defender is usually moving with the offensive player. I don't remember if there's a strict interpretation on secondary vs. primary defenders, but it's usually the secondary defender that comes over to help that's doing the camping.

I'm not sure it's been mentioned yet, but the reasoning behind this is due to the fact the defender chooses that spot not for playing defense, because there is no chance to block a shot from under the basket, but rather for the sole purpose of drawing contact from the driving offensive player after the shot. The NCAA-W committee felt this was an uneccessary play from a possible injury standpoint. Also, a point that was made earlier was this only applies to "north-south" drives to the basket, iow, a drive down the lane from, say, outside the free throw line. If the drive originates from the corner and moves along the baseline, this rule does not apply because the defensive player still could be defending a pass into the opposite corner, or the offensive player could continue to drive along the baseline under the basket, so the defender is actually playing some other kind of defense other than just standing there to take contact.

Yea, I know, drawing charges is also playing defense. I don't know if I explained it very well, but the committee is just trying to get rid of any uneccessary contact. It's not one of my favorite rules, but I (kinda) understand why it's there. As far as it being stupid, I can think of other rules that are further up the stupid ladder than this one (matching color headbands?...). But, if I'm going to call that game, I guess I'm going to enforce all the rules of that game, whether or not I think they're stupid.

I checked out the archive and there was nothing in it. If you think of another place they might be let me know.

As I've asked many times....how is taking a spot that forces the opponent to stop, change directions, or take a less desireable shot not good defense? Great defense is when a defender gets in a spot that the opponent would like to go through but can't because it's taken. It's the purest of basketball plays. The NBA and NCAAW way is a manipulation of the fundamentals of the game in order to increase scoring for the sake of entertainment (read $$$).

Why isn't being tall and just standing with your hand over the top of the basket allowed? Isn't blocking a shot one of those "pure basketball plays"? Or did the rulesmakers change the rules to allow for taller people to play without it being "easier" for them - they still have to dribble, pass, and shoot without being to just stand under the basket and swat shots away.

My guess is the committee is trying to keep defenders from taking the "easy" way out by just standing in a spot that just takes away layups, rather than playing defense. Sure, it's a fine line between the two. But, remember, that's why they made the distinction between someone standing in that spot on "north-south" drives vs. "east-west" drives along the baseline.

Are you saying you would be in favor of allowing a player under NFHS rules to dribble for 8 straight minutes, even if he or she was closely guarded? :confused:

Getting in a player's path under the basket such that is will cause them to alter their course is no more easy than getting in their path 5 feet in front of the basket for a similar effect. The shooter has every chance to pull up for a short jumper (unguarded) or even still take a layup if there is a defender waiting under the basket. No defender blocks that much area (unless they defender is an NFL offensive lineman).

Excellent post.

Camron,
I agree with you 100%. Personally, I hope that the NFHS never changes its rule.

Why? You ask.

Because Barb Jacobs does not have a clue as to what is in the rules book. I am not about to climb up into the attic do research the exact year, Barb Jacobs originally made this intepretations mid-year and then had the rules book changed the next year to comply with her interpretation. This was done in the late 1990's. All I am going to say for now is that when she made her interpretation, many, many women's college officials could not believe that she would make such an interpretation because it was in direct contridiction of the rules. One also must remember that Barb Jacobs had never officiated a basketball game in her life. She is a former college basketball coach.

MTD, Sr.

As stated before, the ONLY reason for setting up under the basket is to try and cause a collision... it's not trying to alter the shot, it's not hustle, it's simply trying to cause a collision. The NCAAW mindset is that it is not good defense, and that's the way it is to be called at those levels. Don't like it, don't try to officiate those games...

And MTD, Sr. - what in the hell difference does it make that Barb Jacobs never refereed??? She was just a coach??? So only referees should have any input on the rules? Someone who has devoted their life to knowing and understanding the game has no business giving input on rules? That's a ridiculous position to take.