NFHS - FT mechanic rational?

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then you must not be very good.

It's a violation to break the lane with your foot. But in 20 years of calling, every player I've ever seen do this put his foot down in the lane. If you can't make that call, then you should probably hang'em up.


There's no way you can know if the plane is broken by standing behind the line on your side. It goes against everything that's ever been taught with regard to getting the proper angle. When you administer a throw-in, I guess you stand behind the thrower to know whetehr he's broken the boundary plane or not.


Oh well, that just means you're both wrong. If you can't get wide enough to see the players you're responsible for during the FT and make a foul call after restrictions, you might won't to get your feet out of the concrete and move.

Personally, I don't limit myself to one side of the lane or the other on rebounding action. I get an angle where I can see the entire play. I'll yield to my partner if he makes the call but I'm not going to ignore the foul.

Sorry I forgot to add blue font, of course I'm not advocating needing to stand right on the line. My OP originally was trying to find the rational for looking opposite, when in NCAAM they stay the same side. Why the difference? You're right I must not be very good.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Sorry I forgot to add blue font, of course I'm not advocating needing to stand right on the line. My OP originally was trying to find the rational for looking opposite, when in NCAAM they stay the same side. Why the difference? You're right I must not be very good.

Yes, in the OP you were. In your reply to me, you were indicating your disagreement with the mechanic.

Yes, I'm aware you were referring to the 2009-20011 Officials Manual. They doesn't change the fact I didn't get one or what we were told at our state clinic.

BTW, it's not rational, it's rationale.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Yes, I'm aware you were referring to the 2009-20011 Officials Manual. They doesn't change the fact I didn't get one or what we were told at our state clinic.

BTW, it's not rational, it's rationale.

Mea cupla.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then possibly that's a state change, because that's what we were told at our state clinic this past week. We did not receive an Officials Manual this year.

Then why did you imply it was a "state" thing since you knew I was referring to the NFHS book?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes there is. What we used to call the first marked lane space was changed last year to being called "the lane area from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone marks". What we used to call the second marked lane space is now called the first marked lane space.

Billy, get real. You know exactly what I was referring to. You can call it what you want but you and I both know that there's still a space where there's always been a space and no one stands in it.

Originally Posted by eyezen

Then why did you imply it was a "state" thing since you knew I was referring to the NFHS book?

WTF are you talking about?

I stated we were told in our state meeting this past week that we would be responsible for the entire opposite line.

You then stated that was contrary to the Officials Manual.

I then stated that it must be a state adoption and that I didn't receive an Officials Manual this year. Therefore, I have no idea what this year's Manual states.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Billy, get real. You know exactly what I was referring to. You can call it what you want but you and I both know that there's still a space where there's always been a space and no one stands in it.

BktBallRef: I apologize if you took my post to be sarcastic, but it wasn't intended to be sarcastic. I was serious. Last year I got an IAABO refresher exam question wrong because of this problem of what to call what was previously called the first marked lane space. If I can recall correctly, the question read: A defensive player is in the first marked lane space. The official calls a violation. Is the official correct. I answered no, that there was no violation, because, according to the new rule wording last year, the first marked lane space was above the neutral zone, and the defensive player was where he belonged. IAABO claimed the correct answer was that the official was correct. I appealed the question and answer and was told that IAABO still considered the area below the neutral zone to be the first marked lane space, because it was closest to the endline. I thought that you, like IAABO last year, were calling the area below the neutral zone the first marked lane space, which, no matter what IAABO says, is not the first marked lane space, by rule, and I didn't want the error to continue to circulate.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I stated we were told in our state meeting this past week that we would be responsible for the entire opposite line.

In my opinion, this is a good change. I wish that we would do this in Connecticut.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You then stated that was contrary to the Officials Manual. I then stated that it must be a state adoption and that I didn't receive an Officials Manual this year. Therefore, I have no idea what this year's Manual states.

I believe that the manual comes out only once every other year. The present NFHS manual is labeled 2009-11, so your manual from last year should have the up to date NFHS "national" mechanics.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I believe that the manual comes out only once every other year. The present NFHS manual is labeled 2009-11, so your manual from last year should have the up to date NFHS "national" mechanics.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. It makes no difference to me what the 2009-2011 manual says. I will do as I'm told.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We did not receive an Officials Manual this year.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm aware you were referring to the 2009-20011 Officials Manual. They doesn't change the fact I didn't get one.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I didn't receive an Officials Manual this year. Therefore, I have no idea what this year's Manual states.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. It makes no difference to me what the 2009-2011 manual says.

How would it be clear to me that you don't care what the 2009-2011 manual says when in three previous posts you made it clear to the Forum that you don't have the new manual? If you don't care about what's in the manual, and I believe that you don't, then why refer to the fact that you don't have it on three occasions. If you don't care about what's in the manual, then it shouldn't matter whether you have the current manual, or not. That's the part that I was unclear about.

[muxbule]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

They doesn't change the fact I didn't get one or what we were told at our state clinic.

BTW, it's not rational, it's rationale.

By the way, it's not they doesn't, it's that doesn't. we all make typos. Lighten up