One Foot on the Line, The Sequel

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Shrug!! OK,I'll bet Chuck's right one!

Unless he's got something else to whine about!

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Shrug!! OK,I'll bet Chuck's right one!

So the bet is double-or-nothing?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Because of the disconcerting action thread I really have not paid too much attention to this thread, but Nevadaref and cmathews, hit the nail on the head. The powers that be did not do a very good job of thinking this play and subsequent interpretation thru.

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]."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

So the bet is double-or-nothing?

Fine with me. What have I got to lose?

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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]."

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!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref


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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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?

[/B]

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!

[mick]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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!

Huh?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Huh? [/B][/QUOTE]LMAO!

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by cmathews
....with all that said why would you teach the foot on the boundary anyway...because a good coach who's team is being pressed will just have his player hand or toss the ball to the defender and oops sorry you are out of bounds...

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.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Coach,unfortunately you are no longer teaching to the rulebook.This rule has now been defined to the interpretation above. I would bet Chuck's left one that there will be an interpration to that effect going up on the NFHS website soon. I'd check with your local officials' group on this one,if I was you. Might save you some grief when the season opens.It's always better to find out how your officials are gonna call it,rather than listening to any of us on this Forum. JMHO.

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]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach
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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Barry C. Morris]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

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