2009-10 POEs explained

[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

[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

"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.

[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.

[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!