Well, as suggested a few days ago, "That Guy Howard", which means Howard Mayo, local basketball rules god, and previous member of the NFHS rules committee for a number of years, has checked in about the one-foot- on-the-line-is-it-legal-guarding-position discussion. I'm starting a new thread because the earlier one had sort of degenerated (why am I not surprised!?)

I posted earlier an e-mail exchange we had where he quoted the rule, and pointed out the problems in the wording. I also read him as saying that once legal guarding position had been established, a foot could then move onto the line, and the position would stil be legal. I had apparently mis-read him, though.

He called me tonight to report his official position now, after checking with Mary Struckhoff over the weekend. So Howard, Mary Struckhoff and the NFHS rules committee are all in agreement about how they want this thing called, and that's the way it's going to be!! The rule is, if any of the foot is out of bounds, when contact is made, it's a blocking foul, regardless of any previously established legal guarding position.

I'm thinking of it as being consistent in this way, offense can't step on or over the line. Defense can't step on or over the line, now, either.

And remember, you heard it first ..... HERE on the OfficialForum.com!!

Oh yeah, I can see this conversation with the coach going well. Whistle, "Block." Coach, "WHat!!!???, he was just standing there!" "Sorry, coach he had one foot on the OOB line." Shortly, followed by two Ts and a coach ejection.

This is a cop out interp. If the NFHS wants to make a point about the kids stepping OOB, rather than just calling a block because the kid had a foot on the line, the official should have to call a T on the defensive player for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. The Block/Charge is then not a foul because the ball is already dead, and the contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant.

Are you calling us degenerates?

Thanks,Juulie. Means Bob Jenkins was right from the git-go. Which figgers.

At least we know how to call it now. Whether we agree with it,or not,doesn't really mean anything either.

I agree!If they're off the floor,it shouldn't be a violation. It should be a T for "disconcertion"!

:D

Don't you mean "disconcertation"? :)

I agree with Nevadaref to a degree. I don't think we wants T's in this situation, but the rule should be written to express the way they want it to be called. It wouldn't be hard to write it that way. Making an interpretation that CLEARLY ISN'T WHAT THE RULE says is not the best way to do things. This is where officiating loses it's consistency. ("The NL President told me I could make up my own outside corner. What's that? There is no more NL President, but instead a camera in centerfield grading my calls, but only in some of the parks? ... Which parks?") Lack of consistency is the biggest complaint most of us coaches have.

For seven years I've been teaching my players in our full-court trap to put a foot on the line so the offensive player can't get past. I have yet to run into a T or a block (well, a block that wasn't a block, but was OOB), so I'm going to keep teaching it that way. I'm teaching to the rule book--could you imagine me trying to have my current players re-learn not to step on the line, after I've been stressing it for years, because Mayo and Struckhoff said so? (No disrespect intended.) Change the words in the rule book, and I'll change the way I teach it.

Same ole, same old.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

Quote:

For seven years I've been teaching my players in our full-court trap to put a foot on the line so the offensive player can't get past. I have yet to run into a T or a block (well, a block that wasn't a block, but was OOB), so I'm going to keep teaching it that way. I'm teaching to the rule book--could you imagine me trying to have my current players re-learn not to step on the line, after I've been stressing it for years, because Mayo and Struckhoff said so? (No disrespect intended.) Change the words in the rule book, and I'll change the way I teach it.

This is one of the reasons, Struckhoff's name does not go very far around here (in the state I live). Because things that could have been done correctly, seemed to not go the way she claimed they should have been when she was here (as an Asst. Executive Director of the IHSA, over Officials Department). I totally agree with your assessment of this situation. If you want the rule to be enforced as intended, make the wording as such. And if officials are supposebly making these rules (do not want to get into that debate again), then why not make rules that coincide with their interpretation? And unfortunately, not many officials are going to read this post and see what the NF "intended" by stating what the rule "meant." But I guess that is why a coach, like yourself has nothing but confidence in the job these "so called officials" did in writing this new and very understandable rule. No wonder we are always arguing over small details.

Peace

I'm confused
 

Q1: A establishes LGP, then maintains LGP, and while sliding back, steps OOB. B also steps OOB immediately before contact with A - Violation on B?

Q2: Same as Q1 but this time contact comes immediately before B steps OOB - Block on A? Even if B went OOB deliberately to get the foul called on A?

Sorry, messed up the alphabet the first time... sheesh!

[Edited by PGCougar on Jul 30th, 2003 at 10:17 AM]

You know, after reading this line of postings as well as the "degenerated" one...and after re reading rule 10-6-2 which I will paraphrase here, says that if there isn't sufficient room for the dribbler to pass between the boundary that the responsibility for contact lies with the dribbler....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...we get the ball at this spot closer to the half court line, and hey look the 10 second count will start again also....so really the foot on the boundary is not really that effective of a tactic if the other team is actually paying attention...next to the boundary yes...but otherwise he is just oob....

Thanks Juulie. Now, for a dose of realism - I think I'm gonna be doing what the HS interpreters tell me to do in the hs leagues I work, simply because what they tell me is what they tell the coaches at their pre-season meeting. It's difficult for a coach to argue with "Didn't they go over this at the meeting coach?".

Of course I am expecting to hear this interp at my meetings this fall.

For seven years I've been teaching my players in our full-court trap to put a foot on the line so the offensive player can't get past. I have yet to run into a T or a block (well, a block that wasn't a block, but was OOB), so I'm going to keep teaching it that way. I'm teaching to the rule book--could you imagine me trying to have my current players re-learn not to step on the line, after I've been stressing it for years, because Mayo and Struckhoff said so? (No disrespect intended.) Change the words in the rule book, and I'll change the way I teach it. [/B][/QUOTE]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.

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.

Sadly, I lost my left one in a tragic "monkey-bars" related accident as a child :eek:

:crosses legs & winces:

Re: Same ole, same old.
 

Any other "Friends" fans out there? Can't you see Rut at home, sitting there like Joey, going: "Supposably. [thinking harder] Supposably? 'He went to the library. . . supposably.' Yeah, supposably." :)

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".

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

You go Napoleon.
 

No, but I can see your short *** trying to wish the BoSox can win a World Series and knowing it is not going to happen. But then again, your wife probably understands your "shortcomings."

Re: You go Napoleon.
 

Is this supposed to be funny? Or is it a genuine attempt at insulting me? Is there some third option I'm not seeing? Well, it's not funny. . . And it's a pretty lame insult. Short, Red Sox fan, sexually inadequate. . . I think we all already knew these things, didn't we? Where's the insult? ;)

See, Rut, my post wasn't intended to insult anybody. I noticed a fairly common misuse of a word and related it to a hilarious scene from a sitcom called "Friends". You replied with a poorly thought out ad hominem statement. Maybe Rut is Phoebe's boyfriend that none of the other friends can stand. (The "I Hate That Guy" episode.) Just a thought.

Short, Red Sox fan, sexually inadequate.

[/B][/QUOTE]Don't feel bad ,Chuck. Did I ever tell you how I met my wife?

http://www.uselessgraphics.com/copy_of_flasher01.gif

Of course,when my my wife tried to cheer me up,she said " Look at it this way,Shorty. At least you're not a Red Sox fan!".

You're right. I goofed. Since A1 has released the ball, I should have written charging foul on A1.
Try the question now.

While this new wording doesn't require a foul to be called, I have written the situation to be that A1 runs over B1, under the other rules for contact that are still in place,it seems that a foul should be called on this play. Maybe you are voting for letting the whole mess go without a call of any kind.

EDIT ORIGINAL TO ADD THIS:
BTW, as an afterthought I'll add that even if the ball had NOT been released on the throw-in it could not be a PC on A1

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by Dan_ref 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? While this new wording doesn't require a foul to be called, I have written the situation to be that A1 runs over B1, under the other rules for contact that are still in place,it seems that a foul should be called on this play. Maybe you are voting for letting the whole mess go without a call of any kind.

Maybe I am.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 1st, 2003 at 08:10 AM]

That horse is dead.
 

nevadaref,

<u>Is this a player control foul on A1?</u> Of course not; where is the ball?

<u>Is this a block on B1?</u> Of course not; who initiated the contact?

<u>Is this a double foul since both players have feet OOB?</u> Of course not; who initiated the contact?

<u>Is this there nothing to be called?</u> Of course not; who initiated the contact?

Take those rule books, ... and read some more, ref-editor!

Legal guarding position does not apply to every case of contact. It protects the proper defender from certain offenses against him. You are attempting to twist a clarification into a silver slipper for all occasions.
Why?

mick

Here's the ruling from the press release version:


Does anyone have the rulebook yet to tell us what, verbatim, the rule states now? (If not, maybe we should wait until that comes out - remember all the debates about the blood timeout rule????)


Also, at some point before the season begins, the NFHS will publish its annual interpretations. My guess is that this editorial change will be cleared up here.

Seems to me that we need a definition of 2 things.

Playing court:

Legal Guarding position:

Good grief!
 

CHUCK! Please tell everyone that you don't watch "Friends!" Please! Hurry!! :D

Next thing you, you'll tell us that you're a "Melrose Place" fan, too. :p

Re: Good grief!
 

I'm not ashamed to admit that I watched about the first 3 seasons of Friends, back when it was actually (not supposably) funny, and they weren't all sleeping together.

I couldn't even tell you what channel it's on.

That horse rides again!
 

Mick, You wrote this 4 hours after I posted this correction:By your process of elimination responses, I gather you believe that a charging foul on A1 is the proper call. My point in this post is that this is a block/charge play for which the correct call is obvious, but under this new interpretation the proper call will no longer be correct because the defender has a foot on the OOB line.
As for this non-sequitor comment: I never said it did, but it certainly does apply to block/charge situations, which is what this play is.

The rules committee hasn't given the consequences of this "interpretation" proper consideration.
Care to consider my point now?

Re: That horse rides again!
 

Nevadaref,
Would I be surprised if you would make such an interpretation on the floor (<I>as you apparently have made here</I>). Yes, I probably would be surprised.

You seem too intelligent and knowledgable. Yet you Zimp a subject to death. Please reconsider such an attitude. It bores.

Rules are based upon the creation of fair play. I think your interpretation is neither fair, nor correct.
Sans clarification, many of which are published every year, I will not call the play according to your interpretation. http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif

mick

Can someone summarize what this all means????
 

Help out a confused coach please...

A establishes LGP inbounds. While defending B on a drive, A slides back and maintains LGP BUT foot touches the line.

Q1: B collides into A after A's foot touches the line - Block on A? Charge on B? Violation for B being OOB? Why????

Q2: B collides into A about the same time or before A's foot touches the line - Block on A? Charge on B? Why????

Re: Can someone summarize what this all means????
 

Quite honestly, we don't know. Until the rule books are shipped and the 2003 interpretations are posted on the NFHS website, anything written here is just speculation.

But I will say that this change in the rule probably won't have a lot of effect on the game, or possibly even the way this is called.

Re: Can someone summarize what this all means????
 

<B><Font color = Green>4-23 Clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the “playing court.” </font></B>

This rule merely removes the opportunity of a defender to legally take a charge on his torso by moving laterally and maintaining legal guarding position while being out-of-bounds.
If the offensive player sees and goes toward a seam between a defender and the line, the defender, stepping out-of bounds, though maintaining, is now blocking.
mick

Re: Re: Can someone summarize what this all means????
 

The word is that the rule book says that you must have both feet in bounds to ESTABLISH legal guarding position.

It has been interpreted to mean that if the defender, after gaining legal guarding position, moves laterally and takes the charge but is out of bounds, blocking should be called. That, however, is NOT what the RULE says.