The Official Forum - NFHS 2015-16 Points of Emphasis

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - NFHS 2015-16 Points of Emphasis (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/99867-nfhs-2015-16-points-emphasis.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 963575)

law school 101. number 1 specifically says the following are "fouls." POE 2 say the following are "illegal activity." i agree a -d are fouls. e, contact between players in a lane space before free thrower releases ball --can be violation or foul.

Which you must have failed because you just made a circular argument. I asked for someone to show me a RULE making the action in 2e illegal (in the context of fouls). You cited a rule for violations, 8-4g, which doesn't involve contact. I respond that according to the text of 2e we are discussing a contact situation and challenged you to cite a single instance in which contact between players is a violation. YOU NOW RESPOND WITH POE 2e! Right back where you started.
So allow me to be clear. Please post anything from the NFHS Rules Book that involves contact between two players which you believe to be a violation OTHER THAN THIS POE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 963575)

consider that in the context of what we see happening in high school now---second lane spot may move in early and shove first under. first may hit second early to keep him from pushing him under.

the poe is telling you to watch for "illegal activity" in that situation. doesnt mean you have to call a foul. get the person who goes in early.

Entering the lane early is a violation.
Illegally contacting an opponent would be a foul.
Contacting an opponent in a legal manner is nothing.
Keep it simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 963583)

It says properly enforced and penalized. Which means the enforcement could be a violation or a foul, whichever one applies to the situation. The way I see 2E, is that in those times that a player reaches across the vertical edge of his lane boundary into the opponents lane spot and makes contact, it should be a violation. By getting this when it happens, it will stop any further activity once the shot goes up.

Almost. I agree that we should properly penalize any illegal action with a violation or foul as appropriate.
The problem with your post is that "reach[ing] across the vertical edge of [a] lane boundary into the opponent's lane spot" is NOT illegal according to any NFHS rule. Only breaking such a boundary with a foot is a violation.
Additionally, if contact is made, there is no NFHS rule extant permitting a violation to be called. It is just a judgment call by the official as to whether or not to whistle a foul.

I'm so glad they FINALLY addressed post play as a POE. Long overdue since they've NEVER done that before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 963567)

You are speaking of calling a violation. POE #2 is instructing officials to call fouls when the listed items occur. Vastly different and my contention is that 2e cannot be justified by the rules. No where within them is a simple touch of an opponent in a neighboring FT lane space stated to be a foul.
A POE during a previous season made the same comment and I wrote then that it was not accurate. This is nothing more than someone attempting to create a ruling through their editorial position or task of crafting the language for the POEs.

If POE 2e is telling us to call a foul when players standing in lane spaces touch then i agree. not supported by any rules and absurd. I try to avoid thinking they would mean the absurd. (maybe i shouldn't).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 963558)

1. The first line under Verticality in NF 4-45 says "Verticality applies to a legal position." By rule there is (generally) nothing illegal about just touching someone - during a FT or otherwise.

2. The situation you describe of "lift(ing) my right leg and lay(ing) it across your left leg)" is already a violation under 9-1-3g because a player would have to move their right foot beyond the edge of their lane space. So by all means, call the violation.

3. A player moving their arm into someone else's lane space is not a violation by rule. If there's enough contact it may be a foul. If that's the case, call the foul.

you are right. the arm isn't a violation. my screw up.

Tunnel Vision ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 963620)

... the arm isn't a violation.

Don't beat yourself up.

Back when I served on our local board's floor training committee, we had a highly ranked, veteran, trainer who told the rookies that it was a violation for a player, on the lane line, to put an arm through the plane of the lane line marks. It took everything in my power to convince him that he was wrong. He didn't go down easy, he went down kicking, and screaming, but I eventually convinced him that he was wrong.

Sometimes officials just develop these mental blocks. After all, there are a lot of rules, and some of them keep changing all the time.

Now? Where are my car keys?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 963633)

Don't beat yourself up.

Sometimes officials just develop these mental blocks. After all, there are a lot of rules, and some of them keep changing all the time.

Sometimes, officials learn the rules not from the rule books but from what they hear (on TV or other officials) without verifying the rule.

I had a partner call this very thing last week. The coach called him on it. I let him deal with it at the time and he stayed with it. I wasn't sure exactly what he'd called (other than that he had a violation) or why he called it.

Being summer league, we were hanging around the table as the next game was about to start. I wasn't going to ask him about it yet but the coach (politely) came to us wanting to talk about it a little more with my partner about it. I was brought into the conversation by my partner to clarify the rule and (after being sure he wanted my input....I'd have rather had this conversation in private) informed him that it was indeed not a violation at all...that his only option was a foul or nothing.

Pat-A-Cake, Pat-A-Cake, Baker's Man ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 963639)

... his only option was a foul or nothing.

Girls are the worst offenders. It's like they're playing pat-a-cake, or something. Tell 'em to knock it off in the first period, and they'll still be doing it the in the third period. Tell 'em to knock it of in Tuesday night's game, and they'll be doing it again in Friday night's game.

Tell boys to knock it off once, and they stop, period.