We discussed that at TASO (TX). To have legal guarding position as it relates to a charge or block, both feet must be in bounds. some coaches teach to have one foot out to keep an offensive player from getting around him on the base line. This would mean that regardless of when the defense establishes the position, he would be charged with a block if one foot it out.

My thoughts on this are that there must be some judgement here. Otherwise, a savvy offensive player seeing the one foot out, just go right at the defensive player. I would like to see your comments.

I don't remember seeing this in the list of rule changes that is posted on the NFHS website. Are you sure it's a national change, or is it just a Texas thing?

Okay, I went over to the NFHS website and looked at the rule changes, and it IS listed under Editorial Changes. 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.

How do you rule if the player has only one leg? Or three (boy's games only)?

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/confused.gif

Rule 1Section1 defines "playing court" as rectanglar surface...
 

Rectangular surface...measurements indicating the floor area in bounds. So, my original question remains.

Re: Rule 1Section1 defines
 

I'm not negating your original question, it's a good one. I'm just not sure the new "clarification" really clarifies.

If they meant inbounds, why not just say inbounds? It might be possible for them to mean "both feet touching the floor somewhere", without meaning in bounds. I don't see that it's any clearer than it was.

I was in a rules meeting this weekend with Larry Boucher, the Chair of the Rules Committee. The new editorial change is, if they are on the line (OB), then they are not in a legal guarding position.

Then why don't they just say that? Jeez - when are they going to let the participants of this board edit the rule book? http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/conf31.gif

We touched on this a month or two ago. At that time, I stated that it doesn't say inbounds. I can have a foot touching the playing court (if that is strictly defined as inbounds) and touching out-of-bounds at the same time. So, as it's written, it does not require being completely inbounds...only touching inbounds.

Once you start taking your meds!!!

OK lets try this one more time
 

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.

Re: OK lets try this one more time
 

Damian -- he always acts like this. If you ignore him, maybe he'll go away -- although that hasn't worked yet.

About the rule, I think if they meant that both feet had to be entirely inbounds, they should have said so. It's very unclear, don't you think? When anyone sees the new book, look up 4-23-2 and see if the wording is clear, or confusing. The note on the NFHS website isn't very helpful.

Re: OK lets try this one more time
 

Lighten up, Frances. ;)

Check out http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=8544

You want serious, come back in November. You want intellectual. . . well, you're outta luck.

From NFHS Forum
 

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

A1 is dribbling down the right sideline,barely in bounds.B1 establishes a legal guarding position in front of A1 with both feet in bounds. B1 then quickly moves sideways,places one foot on the floor about 2 feet OOB,and the other foot about 1 inch inside the sideline in bounds. Just before A1 makes contact,B1 raises the foot that is OOB about an inch off the floor.A1 now makes contact with B1 just barely within the frame of B1's shoulders. Block or charge?

Re: From NFHS Forum
 

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?

Re: Re: From NFHS Forum
 

Yah, yah, what he said!!

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.

Re: OK lets try this one more time
 

#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.

How many feet will get you inbounds status?
 

Charge.

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'.

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

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. http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tongueout.gif

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

Still, two points remain:
<OL><LI>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.
<LI>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.</OL>

Still, two points remain:

<OL><LI>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.

<LI>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.</OL>

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.

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 :)

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

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 ;)).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: 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 ;)).

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! :D

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..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: 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 ;)). 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! :D

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.)

:D

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.

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.

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]

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".

Didn't Saddam order Uday's torture and execution (although he changed his mind about the latter) after Uday beat Saddam's bodyguard to death? :eek:

True. Dan has ordered MTD Sr.'s torture and execution also.

Dan doesn't like it when people disagree with his posts.

I heard he only ordered disconcertion. http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/...smiley-005.gif

Yabut,it's not just a violation for the disconcertion. The penalty is dismemberment! Plus a T! The T means that he's now seat-belted also.His legs have to stay on the bench.

But it's a POI T & your opponent doesn't get the ball so it's no big deal.

BTW, it's probably too late now but dontcha think a show called "The Husseins" would have been an even bigger hit than "The Osbornes"? I can see it now...."Sajida!!!! The *bleep*ing dogs peed on the *beep*ing carpet again!!! May their stomachs roast in hell!" And the Information Minister is outside with the press saying "Dogs???? There are no dogs here! If they try to come here we will beat them back like...errr...dogs!"

BTW, it's probably too late now but dontcha think a show called "The Husseins" would have been an even bigger hit than "The Osbornes"? I can see it now...."Sajida!!!! The *bleep*ing dogs peed on the *beep*ing carpet again!!! May their stomachs roast in hell!" And the Information Minister is outside with the press saying "Dogs???? There are no dogs here! If they try to come here we will beat them back like...errr...dogs!"

[/B][/QUOTE]Ah,YOU'RE the degenerate Juulie was talking about. I wondered who she was referring to.

Shame,shame!