This place is quickly turning into "The Body Parts Forum".

So the bet is double-or-nothing? :D

I agree with that. My comment to Mary was, "I don't have a vote on the committee, but I would have chosen to make this LGP."

Mary replied, "I don't have a vote either, and I would have voted the same way [as you]."

Fine with me. What have I got to lose? :D

If I win,well...I used to roast chestnuts when I was a kid.I'll cope.

A couple of questions:
1. So who does have a vote on the rules committee? Anyone else find it strange that the editor of the NFHS rules book does not?
2. Here is an example of how poorly the committee's interpretation of this rule is:
Make the call on this play. A1 is OOB for a throw-in. B1 is guarding the thrower. A1 releases the ball on a throw-in pass, and B1 jumps in the air attempting to deflect the pass, but does not touch the ball. B1 then lands directly in front of A1, who is still OOB in the throw-in spot, with his feet squarely on the OOB line. In entering the court A1 runs directly into, over, and through B1.
Is this a player control foul on A1? Remember B1 has his feet OOB when A1 runs over him.
Is this a block on B1? Remember A1 has his feet OOB at the time of contact, since he has just finished a throw-in and is returning to the court.
Is this a double foul since both players have feet OOB?
Is this there nothing to be called?
Take that rules book editor!

How could it possibly be a PC foul on A1?

It's not clear from your post the throw-in is actually over but assuming it is why does the new wording require a foul must be called in your play?

Double foul because both players have feet OOB?

How 'bout A T on B1 for being illegally OOB? Yeah,that'd be a good one to call! Or maybe an unsportsmanlike or delay-of-game T on B1 for not letting A1 come back in bounds immediately?

Or maybe because B1 is OOB,you could give him a T for disconcerting the thrower-in trying to get back in bounds!

Decisions,Decisions! :D

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/rasta.gif
Huh?

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/rasta.gif
Huh? [/B][/QUOTE]LMAO!

Like I said, I've been teaching it this way for seven years, and in all those games, varsity, JV, summer league, AAU. Not once has this ever happened.

My understanding is that the 2003-2004 rule book says that legal guarding position must be obtained INITIALLY by having both feet on the floor IN BOUNDS, and that after obtaining this, the player may move and maintain the legal guarding position. It does not say that the player must have both feet on the floor IN BOUNDS AT THE TIME CONTACT OCCURS. That's the interpretation being reported here, but that's clearly not what the rule book says.

Granted, technically my defender is in violation of the rule that prohibits leaving the court. (But again, I've never ever seen that called, so I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.) However, if the rule prohibiting the leaving of the court for an unauthorized reason was INTENDED for a situation like this, why would Mayo/Struckhoff come up with the interpretation reported above? If the unauthorized leaving rule was intended for situations like this, wouldn't the Mayo/Struckhoff interpretation be that a technical should be called instead of a blocking foul?



[Edited by A Pennsylvania Coach on Jul 31st, 2003 at 12:47 PM]

The point to this whole discussion, covering seven pages on two threads, is that the rules committee has handed down this new "interpretation" of a rule, and most of us think the "interpretation" GOES AGAINST how the rule is worded. So we're all agreeing with you about the "common sense" stuff. However, with this interpretation in place, the intentions are clear and we have to call it, and you have to play it, the way the committee has interpreted it. Unless your local area is going to go against that and do it differently. If I were you, I'd call whoever is the rules interpreter for the refs who work your games, and talk to that person about how they are going to handle this situation.

As I was reading this thread, I was wondering, just how many members of the Rules Committee are basketball officials. Ronnie Girouard, of Winnie, Texas, is the NFOA member of the Committee, and Jack Baly, of Wilmington, Deleware (Section 2 Representive) are basketball officials. Jack is an IAABO Intepreter in Deleware, and I am sure that he will be fielding a lot of questions about this problem at the Fall Rules Interpreters Conference in October.

Larry Boucher, this year's chairman, is a retired basketball ref. His full time job is associate commissioner of the Kentucky High School Athletic Association. He also is a supervisor of officials for the Kentucky Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, a group of division I and division II colleges.

Camron Rust already has done a great job of letting us know. There are 11 people on the NFHS Rules Committee. Nine are officials and two are coaches.See below:

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...4&pagenumber=2