Center line rules

[Scrapper1]

This may have been asked before, but why are there 2 rules in the NCCA-W book governing the center line? 15.2.4.2 says that "any part(s)" of the body can cross the center line, as long as some part of the body stays on or above the line.

So why do we need 15.2.4.1 to tell us that it's ok for a "foot, feet or hand(s)" to cross the center line?

If the whole body can go across, then obviously a foot, feet or hand can go across. Why bother to even include the "foot, feet or hand(s)" provision?

Is it ok for me to just black out 15.2.4.1 with a Sharpie?

[FMadera]

Not only was it discussed here, but you even participated in the thread.

[Scrapper1]

I thought I remembered it. So the only difference is that safety concerns are not a factor if only the foot, hand(s) go over. If there is a safety concern, do we ignore it and play on? Or do we stop play and replay?

But if only a foot or hand goes over and creates a safety concern, then I would call interference anyway; since interference is contact or the apprehension of contact while playing the ball.

So I think that I will black out 15.2.4.1 after all.

(Additionally, it's kind of a silly rule if it tells officials to disregard a safety concern. That's never going to happen in a game I officiate.)

[FMadera]

I'm not sure you were reading it right.

If the hand or foot go beyond the center line (but are still in contact), there is no foul even if there is a player right next to the penetrating body part. However, there would be a violation if there were intereference (if a player were tripped, for example).

If it were any other body part beyond the center line, it is not illegal if there is a safety concern (such as a nearby player). If so, then it would be illegal.

No one is disregarding any safety concerns. Not sure how you got that.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FMadera

If the hand or foot go beyond the center line (but are still in contact), there is no foul even if there is a player right next to the penetrating body part. However, there would be a violation if there were intereference (if a player were tripped, for example).

But the opponent does not actually have to get tripped for interference to occur. The rules state that it can be the "apprehension" of contact. IOW, if the opponent has to move around the foot to play the ball because she's worried about tripping, that is interference.

No one is disregarding any safety concerns. Not sure how you got that.

Part of your reply in the other thread said:

15.2.4.1: If the foot or hand go beyond the center line, if part of the hand or foot are above or on the center line, there is no violation if there is no interference. Whether or not there is a safety hazard makes no difference at all, so long as the hand or foot is on or above the line (again, so long as there is no interference).

Emphasis mine, obviously.

IMHO, 15.2.4.1 should simply be eliminated. That way, the rule would essentially be same for all situations: "It's ok for any body part to cross the line, as long as part of your body stays on or over the line. It's an immediate fault if interference or a safety concern occurs." There's no reason to differentiate the two scenarios.

[MCBear]

Scrapper, I wouldn't be thick-headed enough to assume that I know more than the USAV and NCAA rules writers. Both codes are using the same language and interpretation. We have one rule when there is a safety issue and the other when there is not. I know that you only ref by NCAA rules so you don't have the challenge of reffing multiple rules codes during the same week...and sometimes during the same day.