2009-10 POEs explained

[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 .

"Good visual examples of this distance can be found on the court as: the distance between the free-throw line and the top of the semi-circle; from the division line to the jump circle; two adjacent marked lane spaces."

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, the closely-guarded rule was clarified last year to read forward foot to forward foot in the definition (4-10).

I have been given some tips on how to use the markings on the floor to help judge that six-foot distance during play.

1. The FT line to the the top of the FT semi-circle is six feet.
2. The division line to the top of the center restraining circle is six feet.
3. The width of the FT lane is twelve feet. So from the middle of the lane to either side is six feet.
4. Any two adjoining marked lane spaces encompass six feet of space.
5. If you are standing on the 28' has mark which forms the end of the coaching box nearest the table and looking straight across the court, it is exactly three feet to the three point line at the apex of the FT semi-circle.

If you have two players near those areas, the court markings can really help you judge six feet. If you familiarize yourself with those markings and get a good feel for those distances, you can more readily translate it to other areas of the floor.

Anyway, it was helpful to me.

[Nevadaref]

Point #3
This explanation of part of the three second rule is NOT how most of us here have previously understood it.
The prevailing opinion was not that the count stopped and then resumed, but rather that the player was simply not penalized for going over the allotted time during the course of making a move to the basket. If that move was stopped and a try did not take place, then he would be penalized. There was no need to resume or continue the count if a total of three seconds had already elapsed.
Whoever wrote this has a different view.

B. Exception. Allowance is made and the count is momentarily stopped when a restricted player has the ball and dribbles or makes a move to try for goal. However, the previous count is resumed if the player does not continue and try for goal. Some may feel that exception complicates the rule, but it is necessary in order to balance the offense and defense. The most obvious misinterpretation of this rule is when the restricted player has a two-second count when he or she begins the move to try for goal, but is stopped or the ball is batted loose. The player involved, while in the lane, attempts to regain possession and instead of continuing the count, the official erroneously stops it entirely. If the player starts a move to the basket and the ball is jarred loose, the previous count is resumed and results in a violation if it reaches three seconds. The purpose of the rule is circumvented if a violation is not called when this occurs.

[Nevadaref]

Point #4 on Block/Charge is well-written.

I only have a small problem with the phrasing of one comment, because this directive can so easily be taken out of the specific context for which it was intended.

"3) If a player with the ball gets his/her shoulders past the front of the torso of the defender and contact occurs, the defender has blocked and a foul must be called."

We all know that isn't the case if defender is stationary and the offensive player initiates the contact.

[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)."

[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.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Point #4 on Block/Charge...

"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.
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.

Originally Posted by bbcof83

I have two questions about this:
1) Is the "places one foot on the floor" part important?

Absolutely, because placing one foot on the floor & crashing into the defender is not a travel.

Originally Posted by bbcof83

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 all depends... did the offensive or defensive player violate verticality?
I think it should be a block as the defender has to allow the player to land after catching the ball in the air.

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.

As you previously stated, in this partaicular sitch "one foot on the floor" prior to crashing into the defender is the key. Sometimes they land, turn & see the defender, get nervous & actually travel. I guess some officials were going with the travel as opposed to the PC no matter what happened prior to contact.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Absolutely, because placing one foot on the floor & crashing into the defender is not a travel.

Seems silly to me that they are emphasizing the "one foot on the ground" for this sole purpose but perhaps you're right.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

It all depends... did the offensive or defensive player violate verticality?
I think it should be a block as the defender has to allow the player to land after catching the ball in the air.

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. This is why I was asking if the "one foot on the floor" part was the operative here.

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

[M&M Guy]

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.
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.

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. You are correct that there could be a number of different calls, based upon the specific situation. Sometimes A1 will end up shuffling their feet when they finally see the defender right before contact, so a travel could be the correct call. But for the most part the official has to make block/charge decision. Was the defender guarding a player with or without the ball when A1 went airborne? Did they establish LGP, and if so, was it before or after A1 left the floor? Had A1 returned to the floor before contact? Was time/distance a factor, or not? (Oh...never mind...if I call a travel one team's happy with the turnover, while the other team's happy they didn't get a foul charged to them.) That's what the committee is addressing - see the play and make the proper call, rather than trying to take the easy way out with the "bailout" call.

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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 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??