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

Damian · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 01:38pm

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.

rainmaker · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 02:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Damian
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?

rainmaker · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 02:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Damian
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.

Mark Padgett · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 03:11pm

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

Damian · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 03:43pm

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

rainmaker · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 03:54pm

Quote:

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

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.

FBullock · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 04:12pm

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.

Mark Padgett · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 04:43pm

Quote:

Originally posted by FBullock
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?

Camron Rust · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 06:14pm

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.

Mark Dexter · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 08:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Then why don't they just say that? Jeez - when are they going to let the participants of this board edit the rule book?

Once you start taking your meds!!!

Damian · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 22, 2003, 10:42pm

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.

rainmaker · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 23, 2003, 01:09am

Quote:

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.

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.

ChuckElias · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 23, 2003, 07:55am

Quote:

Originally posted by Damian
I am trying to have somewhat of an intellectual discussion here. 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.

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.

MO_Ref · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 23, 2003, 09:30am

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

Jurassic Referee · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 23, 2003, 09:50am

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?