From the clarification:
There is an imbalance and an advantage given to the defensive player if he/she is permitted to use an area outside the playing court; especially when the offensive player is not given the same opportunity.
I don't buy this. There is already rule 10-6-2... and it seems contradictory to this new clarification:
A dribbler shall not charge into nor contact an opponent in his/her path no attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an opponent and a boundary, unless the space is such as to provide a reasonable chance for him or her to go through without contact.
Now, because the defender has cut off all opportunity by removing a 'reasonable chance ... to go through without contact' plus an inch - because he stepped on the line.... the burden is no longer on the dribbler, it is a block.
From the clarification:
“The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the playing court or continue facing the opponent.” The intent of this sub-article was that the defensive player could be in the air and not touching the floor/ground/playing court.
This has always been the rule... no wonder it was considered editorial.
From the clarification:
Understanding that the defensive player must have in-bounds status to maintain legal guarding position should help alleviate any confusion.
This is new. Clarification maybe? editorial? I don;t think so.
From the clarification:
Officials aren't expected to do anything beyond what they were doing previously. Referee the defense and call the play as they see it. It’s still a judgment call.
Nothing new? NFHS has created a whole new interpretation if not a new rule. I damn sure have to do something different than what I was doing before. Stepping on a line is not quite the same type of judgement as determining a block/charge. Stepping on the line is rather obvious and requires me to do something new concerning the defense.
From the clarification:
The above interpretation is supported in Situation 7 listed on the NFHS Web site.
Yes it is supported in Situation 7. But it is not supported by your rulebook because the editorial changes to rule 4-23 did not include the clarification in 4-23-3b. that the defender must maintain position on the playing court. the interpretation and clarification is beyond the rule of 4-23-3b. If the intent was the the defender cannot leave the playing court it should have been stated in the rules.
I think it is CoverYourAss(I mean mistakes). And not a very good job.
I can fully agree with establishing a legal guarding position on the playing court and if it was stated in 4-23-3b. I could also agree with maintaining that position fully on the playing court... but it wasn't.
Can't wait to make the call.
🙂
I'm sure to hear some howling... let the monkeys loose!
😀
They should have asked for our help before they published!