2009-10 POEs explained

Originally Posted by bbcof83

I disagree. If the defender has the spot before the offensive player jumps to receive the pass then the onus is on the offense to avoid contact whether he/she lands before contact or not.

In that particular sitch you are absolutely right

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

1) Yes, the part about placing the foot on the floor is important for the very reason you mentioned. Once A1 has the ball and has returned to the floor, it is their responsiblility to avoid contact with a defender that has legal guarding position. However, if A1 was still in the air, the defender must either have gotten to the spot before A1 was in the air, or allow A1 time and distance to stop and/or change direction.
2) Many offiicials use the travel as a "bailout" call in this situation...

Very well explained M&M. Now I see the importance of the foot on the floor. So if I understand you correctly, time and distance is a factor in the situation where contact occurs before the offense returns to the floor because the offense didn't have the ball when they jumped and it's a "guarding a player without the ball" situation until he/she establishes possession on the floor. Correct?

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

In that particular sitch you are absolutely right

OK, I should have read between the lines of your post. Thanks for the help.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Very well explained M&M. Now I see the importance of the foot on the floor. So if I understand you correctly, time and distance is a factor in the situation where contact occurs before the offense returns to the floor because the offense didn't have the ball when they jumped and it's a "guarding a player without the ball" situation until he/she establishes possession on the floor. Correct?

That is the way I read the rule. There might be others that disagree, given the fact A1 now has the ball, their status changed at that moment, even in mid-air.

Either way, you see how all this information must be processed in that instant, and the reason some officials simply call the travel instead to avoid making that decision.

[Adam]

I actually disagree based on the logic M&M gives. Once the player gains the ball, time and distance are not a factor.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I actually disagree based on the logic M&M gives. Once the player gains the ball, time and distance are not a factor.

Once I went back and read that rulebook thingy, I would both agree and disagree with you. The rule actually reads the same for guarding an airborne player either with (4-23-4b) or without (4-23-5d) the ball. Either way, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. So once the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor. However, before the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor either.

So, I will amend my original statement somewhat and take out the part about time and distance on the airborne player. But it still doesn't change the reason for the initial comment on having the foot back down on the ground - no time and distance is required for the guard, as opposed to the guard needing to be in the spot before A1 went airborne.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Once I went back and read that rulebook thingy, I would both agree and disagree with you. The rule actually reads the same for guarding an airborne player either with (4-23-4b) or without (4-23-5d) the ball. Either way, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. So once the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor. However, before the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor either.

So, I will amend my original statement somewhat and take out the part about time and distance on the airborne player. But it still doesn't change the reason for the initial comment on having the foot back down on the ground - no time and distance is required for the guard, as opposed to the guard needing to be in the spot before A1 went airborne.

pesky rules. good grief.
I was thinking of the case when the airborne player puts a foot on the floor just prior to contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Point #2 on closely-guarded is basically a reprint from 2004-05 with the addition of a section on using the markings on the court to help officials measure the required six-foot distance.

It seems that someone at the NFHS read a thread of ours from this past season and decided to steal information from a post that I made. Of course, no credit was given! I guess that I should be flattered instead of .

You think you're the only one to have ever thought of this??

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Point #5 on FT administration makes it clear that the NFHS really did add a new requirement for the players in marked lane spaces and tried to pass it off as an editorial change, as we have previously stated on here.

"No player shall enter, leave or touch the court outside the marked lane space (3 feet by 3 feet)."

Not really...touching outside of the space is effectively the same as leaving te space but they had to spell it out for those wound't believe it was the same.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Point #3
This explanation of part of the three second rule is NOT how most of us here have previously understood it.

While the wording and thinking may be differnet, it, in practice, results in excactly the same outcome.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And isn't that what the player did - lifted both feet off the floor, caught the ball, put the first foot back on the floor (step 1), and put the second foot back on the floor (step 2)? Or, were there actually 2 "landings", and no "steps", since both feet were off the floor at the time of the ball being caught?

Neither...having caught the ball in the air, the landing (the first foot to touch) doesn't count as a step...any subsequent contact does.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

"B. Guarding a player with the Ball.
4) When an offensive player receives a long pass with his/her back turned and places one foot on the floor and crashes into a legally set defender, it is a player-control foul. It seems many officials are calling this a traveling violation, which is incorrect"

I have two questions about this:
1) Is the "places one foot on the floor" part important? If the offensive player crashes into the legal defender while in the air is this a block because the defender didn't allow space? I assume not since above it says "Guarding a player with the ball... time and space are of no consequence". Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

It is included because the NFHS states unequivocally that this is a block.
In order to definitely state that, it is necessary to know that the offensive player with the ball to returned at least one foot to the floor prior to the contact occurring. If the contact occurs before either foot comes down, then we don't have enough information to decide whether PC or blocking is correct because we need to know whether the defender obtained a legal position on the court PRIOR to the opponent going airborne. That is what the call will depend upon in that case.

Originally Posted by bbcof83

2) I am having trouble understanding why they decided to mention that many officials seem to be calling this traveling. Depending on the situation this could be called a multitude of different ways. I wish they would have expanded on why it specifically isn't a traveling violation. By wording it this way I have more questions than answers.

The NFHS is against using traveling as a bail-out call in such plays as M&M has correctly articulated. I know that the PAC-10 was actually teaching to call it that way a few years ago!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And isn't that what the player did - lifted both feet off the floor, caught the ball, put the first foot back on the floor (step 1), and put the second foot back on the floor (step 2)? Or, were there actually 2 "landings", and no "steps", since both feet were off the floor at the time of the ball being caught?

While I understand your point, it will be a difficult distinction to explain to a coach who quotes the guideline during the game. I wish they would not have used that specific wording, and stuck with the definitions.

Very well said.

The NFHS does not provide a definition for a step, but the rules book does mention "the other foot touches in a step." I think that we are going to be arguing with coaches who interp it to be whatever supports their cause.

I can state that what I described above is always considered a step by those on TV reviewing a replay and counting feet hitting the floor. That doesn't mean that they are correct, but if that is the prevailing opinion of the masses, then the NFHS just made our job much more difficult and opened us up to taking unnecessary grief.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'll start the comments with this.
Point #1 contains:
"TRAVELING
...
Guidelines for Teaching and Officiating
...
D. A player may never take two steps while in possession of the ball."

Bright idea here!

Since we can't agree on my first scenario, I'll just disprove this statement with a completely different example.

4-33: "A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball steps once, or more
than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot
foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor."

That action certainly isn't illegal.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS does not provide a definition for a step, but the rules book does mention "the other foot touches in a step." I think that we are going to be arguing with coaches who interp it to be whatever supports their cause.

I can state that what I described above is always considered a step by those on TV reviewing a replay and counting feet hitting the floor. That doesn't mean that they are correct, but if that is the prevailing opinion of the masses, then the NFHS just made our job much more difficult and opened us up to taking unnecessary grief.

One can split hairs and argue language specifics here, but the bottom line is that this sentence:

A player may never take two steps while in possession of the ball.

is a lot more accurate than:

He's allowed two steps on a (layup or whatever.)

The second sentence is what a huge number of player/coaches/fans believe.