One Foot on the Line, The Sequel

[rainmaker]

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!!

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I'm starting a new thread because the earlier one had sort of degenerated (why am I not surprised!?)

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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.

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

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

[JRutledge]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

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

[PGCougar]

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]

[cmathews]

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....

[Dan_ref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach
[/B]

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.

[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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I would bet Chuck's left one. . .

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

:crosses legs & winces:

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
And if officials are supposebly making these rules

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."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

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

Unless he's got something else to whine about!