Has anyone seen the new wording on "legal guarding position" must have both feet IB

[RecRef]

Originally posted by MO_Ref
This is my first post, so I don't know how much help this will be. The link below is to discussion regarding the same topic. Thought you might want to know.
http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...;f=11;t=000019

First, welcome to the board.
From the above:

"BktBallRef
Member
Member # 251"

As the old saying goes, "He's everywhere, he’s everywhere.”


Now to the subject. LGP is only one part of the block/charge scenario. There could well be a charge even if there never was LGP as the dribbler or any other player can’t just run over someone else.

I personally have some problems with the new editorial comments and hope we see a further clarification. What about the 3ft rule? Are we going to allow a collision (call a block) because B1 has his foot on the line? This when A1 has had many steps to avoid the contact? Not in my book. Want to talk about ruff play?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by RecRef
Now to the subject. LGP is only one part of the block/charge scenario. There could well be a charge even if there never was LGP as the dribbler or any other player can’t just run over someone else.

I personally have some problems with the new editorial comments and hope we see a further clarification. What about the 3ft rule? Are we going to allow a collision (call a block) because B1 has his foot on the line? This when A1 has had many steps to avoid the contact? Not in my book. Want to talk about ruff play?

Yah, yah, what he said!!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I think that the editorial change was not well thought out and I do not think that Larry Boucher's interpretation, though it has considerable weight, cannot be supported by rule.

The following rule has to do with throw-in violations.

NFHS R9-S2-A2: The thrower shall not fail to pass the ball directly into the court from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

The Rules Committee in the above rule states that a player in this situation is considered on the court even if he is touching out of bounds.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Damian
I am trying to have somewhat of an intellectual discussion here. ASSUME for a minute that what I have requested and what FBullock confirms is that you must have both feet INBOUNDS to obtain a legal guarding position. Leave the rest of the c__p about the rules committee and medication out and lets talk about how this will impact our decision on a block/charge ruling.

Come on guys.

#1 - Welcome to the board, if I haven't already told you that.

#2 - Lighten up, dude. You just got here. We've been here for years and enjoy a little light hearted banter. If you don't, just ignore it. But either way, you can't dictate to people what and what not to post.

#3 - "how this will impact our decision on a block/charge ruling?" I don't think it's possible to answer that until we get a direct interpretation.

[JeffTheRef]

Charge.

[rainmaker]

Just got The Word from Howard, our commissioner and local rules god:


Re forum discussion: Rule 4-23-Art 2 states - To obtain an initial guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
Art 3 states: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: a. The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.

Further notes that I received from the Federation: Further clarifies that the guard must have both feet on the "playing court" (rather that floor) to establish legal position. Also clarifies that a defender who sets up with one foot in bounds and one foot outside a boundary line has not established a legal guarding position.

The above is for initially obtaining a legal guarding position. Re: Art 3 - Once a legal guarding position has been obtained, a guard could have one or both feet off the playing court and not be facing his/her opponent.


I replied:

What about a foot completely in, and a foot partly in? That foot partly in, is technically out, correct? So both feet must be completely in-bounds to establish legal guarding position? Why not just say it that way, and avoid all the discussion?

He replied back:

YES, THE FEET MUST BE TOTALLY IN BOUNDS OR ON THE PLAYING FLOOR IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A LEGAL GUARDING POSITION INITIALLY.
THE COMMITTEE COULD HAVE MADE THE INTERPRETATION EASIER BY USING THE WORDS 'IN-BOUNDS'.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
YES, THE FEET MUST BE TOTALLY IN BOUNDS OR ON THE PLAYING FLOOR IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A LEGAL GUARDING POSITION INITIALLY.
THE COMMITTEE COULD HAVE MADE THE INTERPRETATION EASIER BY USING THE WORDS 'IN-BOUNDS'.

That's the problem. The "clarification" says touching the "playing court." It doesn't say "...TOTALLY IN BOUNDS OR ON THE PLAYING FLOOR..."

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rainmaker
But it doesn't say "in-bounds". What it says is that both feet must be touching the "playing court". I don't have my book with me, but it seems to me I remember a discussion on this board about whether that includes more than just the in-bounds playing area. So I'm not sure how mych this "clarification" helps.

I think the term "playing court" means inbounds. Here's why:

In NF rule 1-1, dimensions are given for the "playing court". These are the dimensions for the inbounds area only. The term "court" is used further on in rule 1 to indicate the minimum 3 foot OOB distance, but that section does not use the term "playing court", only "court". I think the NF is making a distinction between the two.

I am going to interpret "playing court" as the inbounds area. If you don't like it - tough noogies.

[mick]

Originally posted by Damian

Otherwise, a savvy offensive player seeing the one foot out, just go right at the defensive player. I would like to see your comments.

Damian,
What you described is clearly an "intentional player control foul" and has nothing to do with where the defenders' feet are.
That dribbler lacks the savoire faire of hoops.
mick

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

I think the term "playing court" means inbounds. Here's why:

In NF rule 1-1, dimensions are given for the "playing court". These are the dimensions for the inbounds area only. The term "court" is used further on in rule 1 to indicate the minimum 3 foot OOB distance, but that section does not use the term "playing court", only "court". I think the NF is making a distinction between the two.

I am going to interpret "playing court" as the inbounds area. If you don't like it - tough noogies.

Still, two points remain:

1. It's only for establishing position. If the defender obtains LGP before stepping on the line, they may still be in LGP once they are on the line no matter how far OOB the foot is.
   
2. The rule says "touching the playing court". As I've said, a foot my be touching the playing court and also be touching OOB. So, as written, obtaining LGP is still possible unless the foot is entirely OOB.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

I think the term "playing court" means inbounds. Here's why:

In NF rule 1-1, dimensions are given for the "playing court". These are the dimensions for the inbounds area only. The term "court" is used further on in rule 1 to indicate the minimum 3 foot OOB distance, but that section does not use the term "playing court", only "court". I think the NF is making a distinction between the two.

I am going to interpret "playing court" as the inbounds area. If you don't like it - tough noogies.

Still, two points remain:

1. It's only for establishing position. If the defender obtains LGP before stepping on the line, they may still be in LGP once they are on the line no matter how far OOB the foot is.
   
   
2. The rule says "touching the playing court". As I've said, a foot my be touching the playing court and also be touching OOB. So, as written, obtaining LGP is still possible unless the foot is entirely OOB.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Still, two points remain:

1. It's only for establishing position. If the defender obtains LGP before stepping on the line, they may still be in LGP once they are on the line no matter how far OOB the foot is.
   
   

And this is a big deal IMO. This fall coaches around the country will be educated on this subtle clarification but they will hear "gotta be a block if the defender is standing OOB". And everytime a PC is called near a sideline we'll have coaches jumping up pointing at the line shouting "he was out of bounds!"

Sigh....

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
And this is a big deal IMO. This fall coaches around the country will be educated on this subtle clarification but they will hear "gotta be a block if the defender is standing OOB". And everytime a PC is called near a sideline we'll have coaches jumping up pointing at the line shouting "he was out of bounds!"

Sigh....

Yes, this will happen, but it's not that big deal, is it? We already get this every time somebody dribbles through the lane behind the basket.

The big deal is to make sure that all the officials call it the same way. I don't care which way the interpretation goes, but I want to see a clarification so that everybody is calling it the same way. Just my 2 cents.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Yes, this will happen, but it's not that big deal, is it?

Well, it's not a big deal like say your car breaks down in a snowstorm on the way to a game and you're still about 50 miles away and your cell phone rings and it's your boss and he's wondering why you're not at the airport to meet him and the new client like you said you would and you just then realize that you left the house without packing your sansabelts in your bag because you were having an argument with your wife because you took a game for next Saturday night and she already told you she bought theater tickets for that night and you never listen to a word I say so why do I bother. No, not a big deal like that.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Well, it's not a big deal like say your car breaks down in a snowstorm on the way to a game and you're still about 50 miles away and your cell phone rings and it's your boss and he's wondering why you're not at the airport to meet him and the new client like you said you would and you just then realize that you left the house without packing your sansabelts in your bag because you were having an argument with your wife because you took a game for next Saturday night and she already told you she bought theater tickets for that night and you never listen to a word I say so why do I bother. No, not a big deal like that.

Ooooo, I just hate it when that happens