NFHS emphasis on elbow contact

[Rob1968]

Where do I find the "heave-ho" signal?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Where do I find the "heave-ho" signal?

The same place you find the flagrant foul signal.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Where do I find the "heave-ho" signal?

I know that it's not approved by IAABO. Pretty sure that it's not approved by the NFHS.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is not correct. The OOB player can't have LGP, that is all. The rule doesn't come anywhere near declaring that they are liable for all contact by being OOB, just that they can't be guarding. It doesn't become open season for an opponent to run into them if they see they happen to be touching OOB but are not actively guarding.

The case play that some like to cite to support your claim involves a player actively guarding the opponent...meaning the player was moving to maintain LGP but loses it by stepping OOB. It doesn't support your claim at all.

There is nothing in the case play that indicates that player is moving. This is an assumption made by some based on the reasoning that the play involves guarding a player. However, you can be stationary and be actively guarding a player. So the assumption is wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

There is nothing in the case play that indicates that player is moving. This is an assumption made by some based on the reasoning that the play involves guarding a player. However, you can be stationary and be actively guarding a player. So the assumption is wrong.

It is the context. The case is under legal guarding position. If a player isn't moving, they don't need legal guarding position.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by camron rust

it is the context. The case is under legal guarding position. If a player isn't moving, they don't need legal guarding position.

+1

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is the context. The case is under legal guarding position. If a player isn't moving, they don't need legal guarding position.

The FED does not want a defender to be able to straddle the sideline or end line to cut off the offense. That's why they came up with the case play several years ago. They figured we don't allow the offense to run out of bounds so we can't allow the defense to set up out of bounds. The context is not as clear as you seem to think. At least not in my mind. LGP can start with a stationary player. LGP allows them to move to maintain it as long as the do so legally. Moving to have one foot out of bounds is not a legal defense and is not maintaining legal guarding position. If they can't be moving with one foot out of bounds why can they move to a stationary position with one foot out of bounds? Just because a defender is stationary does not mean he is legal. There are other rules that come into play. And I made the same argument you made about it being open season on defenders when this new ruling came out. Our VP of training said that straddling the line is not legal.

And before someone makes the argument about a stationary player with his back to the offense that never had LGP, the answer to that is that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor as long as they got there legally. Also provided that spot is on the floor. Not out of bounds on live ball action.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by adam

+1

-1

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

The FED does not want a defender to be able to straddle the sideline or end line to cut off the offense. That's why they came up with the case play several years ago. They figured we don't allow the offense to run out of bounds so we can't allow the defense to set up out of bounds. The context is not as clear as you seem to think. At least not in my mind. LGP can start with a stationary player. LGP allows them to move to maintain it as long as the do so legally. Moving to have one foot out of bounds is not a legal defense and is not maintaining legal guarding position. If they can't be moving with one foot out of bounds why can they move to a stationary position with one foot out of bounds? Just because a defender is stationary does not mean he is legal. There are other rules that come into play. And I made the same argument you made about it being open season on defenders when this new ruling came out. Our VP of training said that straddling the line is not legal.

And before someone makes the argument about a stationary player with his back to the offense that never had LGP, the answer to that is that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor as long as they got there legally. Also provided that spot is on the floor. Not out of bounds on live ball action.

If you want to call this so literally, why are you not calling a violation for the defender leaving the court for an unauthorized reason???

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you want to call this so literally, why are you not calling a violation for the defender leaving the court for an unauthorized reason???

For the same reason we don't call a violation when a defender loses their balance and steps out of bounds. They didn't intend to step out of bounds. Intent is required. In most cases they probably didn't realize they were out of bounds.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

For the same reason we don't call a violation when a defender loses their balance and steps out of bounds. They didn't intend to step out of bounds. Intent is required. In most cases they probably didn't realize they were out of bounds.

Are you sure about that? How can you tell? When they created the case play in question, it was precisely targeted at defenders stepping OOB on purpose.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you sure about that? How can you tell? When they created the case play in question, it was precisely targeted at defenders stepping OOB on purpose.

So are you saying it is legal for the defender to have one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds?

[OKREF]

I would say that if the defender obtains a position on the court with 1 foot inbounds and 1 foot out of bounds, the defender does not have a legal guarding position, and isn't legally on the court as well. If there is contact then the defender is at fault.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

So are you saying it is legal for the defender to have one foot in bounds and one foot out of bounds?

If they put it OOB on purpose, by the literal application of the rules, they have committed a violation the moment it touches OOB and a foul is not technically possible.

If they are guarding an opponent and step OOB (knowingly or not) in an attempt to cut off their path, they do not have LGP and will be called for a block.

If they are not guarding the opponent and are simply there and are not moving, they don't have LGP (per the rule under discusssion) but don't need it. If the offensive player still can't avoid them, I'm not calling a block. They haven't done anything that the rule defines as being a block. The offensive player is not going to get a free foul called against the defender.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If they put it OOB on purpose, by the literal application of the rules, they have committed a violation the moment it touches OOB and a foul is not technically possible.

If they are guarding an opponent and step OOB (knowingly or not) in an attempt to cut off their path, they do not have LGP and will be called for a block.

If they are not guarding the opponent and are simply there and are not moving, they don't have LGP (per the rule under discusssion) but don't need it. If the offensive player still can't avoid them, I'm not calling a block. They haven't done anything that the rule defines as being a block. The offensive player is not going to get a free foul called against the defender.

The only thing I disagree with is that a stationary player does not need LGP. In some cases they do. A stationary player who is guarding an offensive player must start with LGP. They then can move to maintain it. But to say that a stationary player does not require LGP is not accurate per the rule. At least not in all cases.

For example, if B1 is guarding A1, then pivots to guard A2 and in so doing he places his foot out of bounds, B1 is now a stationary player but does not have LGP and is required to have LGP in this case. You can say they are in violation for leaving the court. But only if you judge intent. But the LGP rule is very clear that they have to have two feet on the inbound side of the court. I believe the wording was chosen to indicate that they can't establish LGP with one foot in and one foot out.