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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by MCBear

We have one rule when there is a safety issue and the other when there is not.

Yup. That seems superfluous to me. Especially since, as Felix pointed out, we're not actually going to ignore a safety concern. If there's a safety concern, you're not going to ignore it simply because only the player's foot is across the line. So why bother with Section 1 of the rule? Snip, snip.

[MCBear]

Both 15.2.4.1 and 15.2.4.2 have been in the NCAA Rules Book since the 2003 season. I am sure that if the PTB had felt that 15.2.4.1 was superfluous, they would have removed it. For now, just accept it as it is, Grasshopper .

[Scrapper1]

I've held off on responding any further to this thread because I was trying to think through how the two separate rules might have different applications. But I can't come up with anything. Can anybody give me an example of a play where 15.2.4.1 applies but 15.2.4.2 doesn't apply? Maybe if I had a concrete play in mind, it would help me see the difference.

Originally Posted by MCBear

Scrapper, I wouldn't be thick-headed enough to assume that I know more than the USAV and NCAA rules writers.

I don't mind appearing thick-headed if it eventually helps to clarify or improve the rules. And anyway, somebody must assume that the rules writers don't have it quite right, or we'd never get any rule changes.

Originally Posted by MCBear

I am sure that if the PTB had felt that 15.2.4.1 was superfluous, they would have removed it.

We'd all like to think that was true, but I wouldn't bet on it. Having worked with members of other national rules committees, I know that the people on those committees are not officials, by and large, and do not necessarily know all the rules or how their changes will affect other rules. Many times, they are good or highly visible coaches, but coaches don't always know the rules. (Although they're required to, by rule.)

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I've held off on responding any further to this thread because I was trying to think through how the two separate rules might have different applications. But I can't come up with anything. Can anybody give me an example of a play where 15.2.4.1 applies but 15.2.4.2 doesn't apply? Maybe if I had a concrete play in mind, it would help me see the difference.

1. R4 jumps to tip a ball and the foot lands across, but over (above) the center line. S3's foot is 8 inches to the left of R4's penetrating foot. Foot is across the center line, but legally so, even though S3's foot is nearby, this would be a legal play.

2. Same as above, only the foot is now entirely beyond the center line, with S3's foot in the same proximity. Violation.

3. Same as 1, but with no S player nearby to present a safety hazard. Play on.

I would recommend that if you need further clarification, you contact Marcia Alterman directly, as she is very good at explaining the interpretations.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FMadera

1. R4 jumps to tip a ball and the foot lands across, but over (above) the center line. S3's foot is 8 inches to the left of R4's penetrating foot. Foot is across the center line, but legally so, even though S3's foot is nearby, this would be a legal play.

It would also be legal if 15.2.4.1 were eliminated and only 15.2.4.2 were applied, would it not?

2. Same as above, only the foot is now entirely beyond the center line, with S3's foot in the same proximity. Violation.

This would also be a violation if 15.2.4.1 were eliminated and only 15.2.4.2 were applied, would it not?

3. Same as 1, but with no S player nearby to present a safety hazard. Play on.

This would also be legal if 15.2.4.1 were eliminated and only 15.2.4.2 were applied, would it not?

[MCBear]

Scrapper, both Felix and I have done our best to explain this, but you're just not getting it. Follow Felix's suggestion and contact Marcia Alterman (Marcia Alterman - NCAA Rules Interp <[email protected]>) for further clarification.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It would also be legal if 15.2.4.1 were eliminated and only 15.2.4.2 were applied, would it not?

This would also be a violation if 15.2.4.1 were eliminated and only 15.2.4.2 were applied, would it not?

This would also be legal if 15.2.4.1 were eliminated and only 15.2.4.2 were applied, would it not?

Yes to all of the above. However, in example 1, were it the knee and not the foot, it would be illegal. Hence the difference, and the need for the two different rules.

I've explained this every which way. I'm done.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Yes to all of the above. However, in example 1, were it the knee and not the foot, it would be illegal. Hence the difference, and the need for the two different rules.

Ok!! This is what I was looking for! Thank you. Why does the knee make it different? In reading 15.2.4.2, it still seems ok, unless you're saying the knee makes it a safety concern?

I think that you guys think I'm being difficult for the sake of being difficult, but I'm really not. I'm just anal about the rules. I really want to know what makes the difference.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Ok!! This is what I was looking for! Thank you. Why does the knee make it different? In reading 15.2.4.2, it still seems ok, unless you're saying the knee makes it a safety concern?

I think that you guys think I'm being difficult for the sake of being difficult, but I'm really not. I'm just anal about the rules. I really want to know what makes the difference.

15.2.4.1 says the foot or hand can cross into the opponent's court without penalty if part of the extremity is on or above the line and there is no interference. They are the only body parts that can do this under this provision. If a knee, arm, etc., anything under than foot or hand crosses into the opponent's space, then refer to 15.2.4.2 A nearby player does NOT make the foot or hand illegal. This rule only applies if the hand or foot is touching or above the center line. If not, refer to 15.2.4.2.

15.2.4.2 says other body parts can cross ONLY IF safety concerns are not present. A nearby player WOULD make this illegal. A hand or foot entirely across the center line would be covered under this provision.