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

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ChuckElias


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.

I was at a camp this weekend and Mary Strukhoff (sp?) was one of the clinicians. I asked her specifically about this point.

She stated that the rule was changed / modified precisely because some officials were calling it one way and some were calling it the other. She told the rules committee that she didn't care what the interp was, but that they needed *one* interp.

The rules committee came back with "basketball is played inbounds so a legal guarding position must be inbounds."

Thus, if the defense sets up on the line, or moves on to the line, it's a blocking foul (well, more precisely, "the defense is responsible for the contact"), even if the defense was set for 20-seconds before the contact.

Mary raised the point that this adds to the judgment required by the official. The rules committee stated that that's what officials are paid for.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Thus, if the defense sets up on the line, or moves on to the line, it's a blocking foul (well, more precisely, "the defense is responsible for the contact"), even if the defense was set for 20-seconds before the contact.

Agree it's a good thing if we all call this the same way.

But the change tells us the defense must be in bounds to *establish* LGP (+/- what the meaning of is...err...playing court is ). It seems from what she told you that the defense needs to be inbounds to establish & *maintain* it. If that's the case then they need to rewrite the editorial change, 'cause that aint what it says now based on what's been released so far.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Thus, if the defense sets up on the line....OR MOVES ONTO ...the line, it's a blocking foul. [emphasis mine]

Howard, this is different from what you stated, care to comment?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
[/B]

I was at a camp this weekend and Mary Strukhoff (sp?) was one of the clinicians. I asked her specifically about this point.

The rules committee came back with "basketball is played inbounds so a legal guarding position must be inbounds."

Thus, if the defense sets up on the line, or moves on to the line, it's a blocking foul (well, more precisely, "the defense is responsible for the contact"), even if the defense was set for 20-seconds before the contact.

[/B][/QUOTE]Mary Struckhoff is the Editor of the NFHS rulebook. Sounds like a pretty definitive ruling.

Thanks,Bob.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I was at a camp this weekend and Mary Strukhoff (sp?) was one of the clinicians. I asked her specifically about this point.

She stated that the rule was changed / modified precisely because some officials were calling it one way and some were calling it the other. She told the rules committee that she didn't care what the interp was, but that they needed *one* interp.

The rules committee came back with "basketball is played inbounds so a legal guarding position must be inbounds."

Thus, if the defense sets up on the line, or moves on to the line, it's a blocking foul (well, more precisely, "the defense is responsible for the contact"), even if the defense was set for 20-seconds before the contact.

Mary raised the point that this adds to the judgment required by the official. The rules committee stated that that's what officials are paid for.

Situation: B1 is set just inbounds in a Legal Guarding Position, A1 approaches and B1 starts to backpedal and when doing so steps on the line. B1 still backpedaling returns fully inbounds just before contact in made. We have;

A) PCF on A1?

B) Block on B1 as he went OOB and thus lost LGP. (Forgetting about space on the floor for the moment)

C) A ref that has to not only watch the upper body contact but also the feet too.

D) Coaches screaming that the defender was or was not on the line. What was that ad in the ’60 about the silly millimeter?

E) A situation where if B1 is fully OOB and A1 touches him OOB is not called because wink, wink, he is a player and not really OOB as such. But, if B1 is that silly little millimeter on the line he is OOB and thus a block is called.

F) A rules committee that is in desperate need of professional procedure writers to rewrite the rulesbook and the casebook. (With all respect to Mary whom I do not know)

G) All of the above.

H) None of the above.

I) All or none of the above - Time to retire to the Outer Banks and only worry about the fishing and the hurricanes.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RecRef

The rules committee came back with "basketball is played inbounds so a legal guarding position must be inbounds."

Thus, if the defense sets up on the line, or moves on to the line, it's a blocking foul (well, more precisely, "the defense is responsible for the contact"), even if the defense was set for 20-seconds before the contact.



[/B]

Situation: B1 is set just inbounds in a Legal Guarding Position, A1 approaches and B1 starts to backpedal and when doing so steps on the line. B1 still backpedaling returns fully inbounds just before contact in made. We have;

[/B][/QUOTE]For B1 to establish their initial legal gaurding position,both feet MUST be inbounds. Now,when contact is made,you just follow the normal block/charge provisos to make the call- if B1 has both feet in bounds when that contact is made.If B1 is OOB,by rule,when the contact is made,it's automatically a block. I think it's actually a lot clearer now.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If B1 is OOB,by rule,when the contact is made,it's automatically a block. I think it's actually a lot clearer now.

Did I miss something? This might be the case but I haven't seen anything yet that backs this up (other than he said-she said ).

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Did I miss something? This might be the case but I haven't seen anything yet that backs this up (other than he said-she said ).

Bob Jenkins got this interp on the weekend from Mary Struckhoff,the Editor of the NFHS rulebook.

If you don't wanna believe that,move to Ohio and change your name!

[APHP]

Rule 4, Section 23, Article 3a in 2003-04 Rule Book reads as follows::"After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the PLAYING COURT or continue facing the opponent". I suppose we are to ignore this rule and go by word of mouth from someone who said they were told by Mary Struckhoff that the rule book is incorrect...I think I will stick with the rule book..

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Bob Jenkins got this interp on the weekend from Mary Struckhoff,the Editor of the NFHS rulebook.

If you don't wanna believe that,move to Ohio and change your name!

Ohio sounds fine (I guess?), changng my name might eliminate some ongoing....errr....issues but I'm not sure I have it in me to write 10,000 word posts detailing my position on what constitutes an "opponent"...every 6 months or so.

(Just kidding Mark, I look forward to reading your posts and I love ya like I'm sure Saddam must have loved Uday & Qusay, may their stomachs roast in hell.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by APHP
Rule 4, Section 23, Article 3a in 2003-04 Rule Book reads as follows::"After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the PLAYING COURT or continue facing the opponent". I suppose we are to ignore this rule and go by word of mouth from someone who said they were told by Mary Struckhoff that the rule book is incorrect...I think I will stick with the rule book..

Are you sure that the above simply means that the defensive player doesn't have to have one or both feet on the floor when the contact occurs? In other words,they can be in the air or standing on one foot? That was the meaning of this section before.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Are you sure that the above simply means that the defensive player doesn't have to have one or both feet on the floor when the contact occurs? In other words,they can be in the air or standing on one foot? That was the meaning of this section before.

That's my thought - as we've discussed before, "on the playing court" and "in bounds" aren't necessarily one and the same.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
- as we've discussed before, "on the playing court" and "in bounds" aren't necessarily one and the same.

Then why does NF rule 1-1 state:

"Section 1 Playing Court Dimensions
The playing court shall be a rectangular surface free from obstructions and with dimensions not greater than 94 feet in length by 50 feet in width." ????????

Rule 1-2 goes on..."The playing court shall be marked with sidelines, end lines........There shall be at least 3 feet of unobstructed space outside boundaries." If the sidelines and endlines are the "boundaries" of the playing court, I think it's clear as to what they mean.

Seems to me they are saying without any confusion that the "playing court" means the inbounds area.

If someone else has an NF reference that the term "playing court" could be construed as including the OOB area, please post it. Thanks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
[/B]

If someone else has an NF reference that the term "playing court" could be construed as including the OOB area, please post it. Thanks. [/B][/QUOTE]
1)NFHS Rule 8-6-1- "The throw in pass shall touch another player(inbounds or out of bounds)on the court before going out of bounds untouched".
2)NFHS casebook play 7.6.3SitC- "The action takes place on a court which has more than 3 feet of unobstructed space outside the boundary line".

Note that R1-2-1,2 just uses the term "court" also,not "playing court".

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 28th, 2003 at 08:37 PM]

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If someone else has an NF reference that the term "playing court" could be construed as including the OOB area, please post it. Thanks. [/B]

1)NFHS Rule 8-6-1- "The throw in pass shall touch another player(inbounds or out of bounds)on the court before going out of bounds untouched".
2)NFHS casebook play 7.6.3SitC- "The action takes place on a court which has more than 3 feet of unobstructed space outside the boundary line".

Note that R1-2-1,2 just uses the term "court" also,not "playing court".

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 28th, 2003 at 08:37 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, and in each case where the term "playing court" is used, the book means the inbound portion only. It uses the term "court" without the word "playing" when it means including the OOB portion. NF 1-2-1 says "playing court" and NF 1-2-2 says "court". 1-2-1 defines the boundaries of the inbounds part of the court, while 1-2-2 speaks of what to do if there is not 3 feet of OOB space on the "court", not the "playing court".