2009-10 POEs explained

M&M Guy

bbcof83 wrote
Very well explained M&M. Now I see the importance of the foot on the floor. So if I understand you correctly, time and distance is a factor in the situation where contact occurs before the offense returns to the floor because the offense didn't have the ball when they jumped and it's a "guarding a player without the ball" situation until he/she establishes possession on the floor. Correct?

That is the way I read the rule. There might be others that disagree, given the fact A1 now has the ball, their status changed at that moment, even in mid-air.

Either way, you see how all this information must be processed in that instant, and the reason some officials simply call the travel instead to avoid making that decision.

Adam

I actually disagree based on the logic M&M gives. Once the player gains the ball, time and distance are not a factor.

M&M Guy

Snaqwells wrote
I actually disagree based on the logic M&M gives. Once the player gains the ball, time and distance are not a factor.

Once I went back and read that rulebook thingy, I would both agree and disagree with you. 😛 The rule actually reads the same for guarding an airborne player either with (4-23-4b) or without (4-23-5d) the ball. Either way, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. So once the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor. However, before the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor either.

So, I will amend my original statement somewhat and take out the part about time and distance on the airborne player. But it still doesn't change the reason for the initial comment on having the foot back down on the ground - no time and distance is required for the guard, as opposed to the guard needing to be in the spot before A1 went airborne.

Adam

M&M Guy wrote
Once I went back and read that rulebook thingy, I would both agree and disagree with you. 😛 The rule actually reads the same for guarding an airborne player either with (4-23-4b) or without (4-23-5d) the ball. Either way, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. So once the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor. However, before the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor either.

So, I will amend my original statement somewhat and take out the part about time and distance on the airborne player. But it still doesn't change the reason for the initial comment on having the foot back down on the ground - no time and distance is required for the guard, as opposed to the guard needing to be in the spot before A1 went airborne.

pesky rules. good grief.
I was thinking of the case when the airborne player puts a foot on the floor just prior to contact.

Camron Rust

Nevadaref wrote
Point #2 on closely-guarded is basically a reprint from 2004-05 with the addition of a section on using the markings on the court to help officials measure the required six-foot distance.

It seems that someone at the NFHS read a thread of ours from this past season and decided to steal information from a post that I made. Of course, no credit was given! 😮 I guess that I should be flattered instead of 😠 .

You think you're the only one to have ever thought of this??

Camron Rust

Nevadaref wrote
Point #5 on FT administration makes it clear that the NFHS really did add a new requirement for the players in marked lane spaces and tried to pass it off as an editorial change, as we have previously stated on here.

"No player shall enter, leave or touch the court outside the marked lane space (3 feet by 3 feet)."

😃

Not really...touching outside of the space is effectively the same as leaving te space but they had to spell it out for those wound't believe it was the same.

Camron Rust

Nevadaref wrote
Point #3
This explanation of part of the three second rule is NOT how most of us here have previously understood it.

While the wording and thinking may be differnet, it, in practice, results in excactly the same outcome.

Camron Rust

M&M Guy wrote
And isn't that what the player did - lifted both feet off the floor, caught the ball, put the first foot back on the floor (step 1), and put the second foot back on the floor (step 2)? Or, were there actually 2 "landings", and no "steps", since both feet were off the floor at the time of the ball being caught?

Neither...having caught the ball in the air, the landing (the first foot to touch) doesn't count as a step...any subsequent contact does.

Nevadaref

bbcof83 wrote
"B. Guarding a player with the Ball.
4) When an offensive player receives a long pass with his/her back turned and places one foot on the floor and crashes into a legally set defender, it is a player-control foul. It seems many officials are calling this a traveling violation, which is incorrect"

I have two questions about this:
1) Is the "places one foot on the floor" part important? If the offensive player crashes into the legal defender while in the air is this a block because the defender didn't allow space? I assume not since above it says "Guarding a player with the ball... time and space are of no consequence". Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

It is included because the NFHS states unequivocally that this is a block.
In order to definitely state that, it is necessary to know that the offensive player with the ball to returned at least one foot to the floor prior to the contact occurring. If the contact occurs before either foot comes down, then we don't have enough information to decide whether PC or blocking is correct because we need to know whether the defender obtained a legal position on the court PRIOR to the opponent going airborne. That is what the call will depend upon in that case.

bbcof83 wrote
2) I am having trouble understanding why they decided to mention that many officials seem to be calling this traveling. Depending on the situation this could be called a multitude of different ways. I wish they would have expanded on why it specifically isn't a traveling violation. By wording it this way I have more questions than answers.

The NFHS is against using traveling as a bail-out call in such plays as M&M has correctly articulated. I know that the PAC-10 was actually teaching to call it that way a few years ago! 😮

Nevadaref

M&M Guy wrote
And isn't that what the player did - lifted both feet off the floor, caught the ball, put the first foot back on the floor (step 1), and put the second foot back on the floor (step 2)? Or, were there actually 2 "landings", and no "steps", since both feet were off the floor at the time of the ball being caught?

While I understand your point, it will be a difficult distinction to explain to a coach who quotes the guideline during the game. I wish they would not have used that specific wording, and stuck with the definitions.

Very well said. 🙂

The NFHS does not provide a definition for a step, but the rules book does mention "the other foot touches in a step." I think that we are going to be arguing with coaches who interp it to be whatever supports their cause.

I can state that what I described above is always considered a step by those on TV reviewing a replay and counting feet hitting the floor. That doesn't mean that they are correct, but if that is the prevailing opinion of the masses, then the NFHS just made our job much more difficult and opened us up to taking unnecessary grief.

Nevadaref

Nevadaref wrote
I'll start the comments with this.
Point #1 contains:
"TRAVELING
...
Guidelines for Teaching and Officiating
...
D. A player may never take two steps while in possession of the ball."

Bright idea here!

Since we can't agree on my first scenario, I'll just disprove this statement with a completely different example.

4-33: "A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball steps once, or more
than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot
foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor."

That action certainly isn't illegal. 😀

just another ref

Nevadaref wrote
The NFHS does not provide a definition for a step, but the rules book does mention "the other foot touches in a step." I think that we are going to be arguing with coaches who interp it to be whatever supports their cause.

I can state that what I described above is always considered a step by those on TV reviewing a replay and counting feet hitting the floor. That doesn't mean that they are correct, but if that is the prevailing opinion of the masses, then the NFHS just made our job much more difficult and opened us up to taking unnecessary grief.

One can split hairs and argue language specifics here, but the bottom line is that this sentence:

A player may never take two steps while in possession of the ball.

is a lot more accurate than:

He's allowed two steps on a (layup or whatever.)

The second sentence is what a huge number of player/coaches/fans believe.

IREFU2

bob jenkins wrote
IMO, that's a "landing" followed by one "step" -- not two steps.

A step is a raising of the foot off the floor followed by putting the foot back on the floor.

I agree with your statement Bob....I believe they are talking about a player holding the ball and then taking two steps and shoot.......

IREFU2

Nevadaref wrote
Point #2 on closely-guarded is basically a reprint from 2004-05 with the addition of a section on using the markings on the court to help officials measure the required six-foot distance.

It seems that someone at the NFHS read a thread of ours from this past season and decided to steal information from a post that I made. Of course, no credit was given! 😮 I guess that I should be flattered instead of 😠 .

"Good visual examples of this distance can be found on the court as: the distance between the free-throw line and the top of the semi-circle; from the division line to the jump circle; two adjacent marked lane spaces."

In regards to this, they should make it 3 feet. I believe it can be better determine with this distance. I have seen players extent their arms, just to be within the 6 feet CGP.

M&M Guy

IREFU2 wrote
I agree with your statement Bob....I believe they are talking about a player holding the ball and then taking two step and shoot.......

[devil's advocate on]
Cool, I got it! So when post player A1 gets the ball on the block, with their back to the basket, pivots on the right foot, and the left foot takes 2 (or, gasp...3 or 4 steps!), while the right foot stays firmly planted to the ground, well, hell, that's a travel! Damn, that left foot took actual rule-book defined "STEPS", by gosh!
[/devil's advocate]

vbzebra

IREFU2 wrote
In regards to this, they should make it 3 feet. I believe it can be better determine with this distance. I have seen players extent their arms, just to be within the 6 feet CGP.

Extension of arms should have nothing to do with it...

4-10 Closely Guarded.....
"The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler."

just another ref

Nevadaref wrote
Since we can't agree on my first scenario, I'll just disprove this statement with a completely different example.

4-33: "A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball steps once, or more
than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot
foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor."

That action certainly isn't illegal. 😃

This would not be two steps. It would be one step multiple times.

M&M Guy

just another ref wrote
This would not be two steps. It would be one step multiple times.

But that's not what the rule says, is it? And what is the definition of "step"? Is it in Rule 4 anywhere? Is it anywhere in Rules 1-10?

I'm not picking on you directly, because in theory we agree. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of making a statement like the committee did that has no rule basis behind it, and does nothing but confuse the issue more for the "less informed" (read: coaches, players, fans).

Why not stick with the real rule: Travelling is moving a foot or feet beyond the prescribed limits. Know what the pivot foot is, and what can or cannot be done with it. Unfortunately, none of the rule-prescribed limits has anything to do with the "number of steps".

just another ref

M&M Guy wrote
But that's not what the rule says, is it? And what is the definition of "step"? Is it in Rule 4 anywhere? Is it anywhere in Rules 1-10?

I'm not picking on you directly, because in theory we agree. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of making a statement like the committee did that has no rule basis behind it, and does nothing but confuse the issue more for the "less informed" (read: coaches, players, fans).

Why not stick with the real rule: Travelling is moving a foot or feet beyond the prescribed limits. Know what the pivot foot is, and what can or cannot be done with it. Unfortunately, none of the rule-prescribed limits has anything to do with the "number of steps".

This whole thing revolves around the fact that there is no definition of step in the rule book. Therefore, when I say step, I am no longer speaking basketball rules, but plain (sorta) English. When I refer to taking two steps, I refer to a player in control of the ball starting with one or both feet on the floor, then progressing ahead with one foot followed by the other. When that second foot hits the floor, if this player is still holding the ball, this is not a legal play. Period.

The condensed version: Two steps while holding the ball is illegal.

IREFU2

vbzebra wrote
Extension of arms should have nothing to do with it...

4-10 Closely Guarded.....
"The distance shall be measured from the forward foot/feet of the defender to the forward foot/feet of the ball handler."

Agreed, but I have seen others start a count based on this.

« Previous Page Next Page »