Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
Basketball / What is a pivot?
« Last post by Whatisapivot on Today at 03:00:50 PM »
From the NBA rulebook

Section VIII—Pivot

a. 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, with the other foot (pivot foot) in contact with
the floor.
b. If the player wishes to dribble after a pivot, the ball must be out of his hand before
the pivot foot is raised off the floor. If the player raises his pivot off the floor, he must pass or
attempt a field goal before the foot is returned to the floor.

If he fails to follow these guidelines, he has committed a traveling violation.

This fails to define what a pivot is exactly, it describes certain actions but not everything to precision.

Is pivoting spinning on a fixed location without lifting the pivot foot while moving the other foot?

Or is a step required? This seems more like stepping with an established pivot foot than pivoting because pivoting is the act of moving on a fixed point, not just stepping.

I feel this rule is extremely vague and deserves to be rewritten to uphold the integrity of the sport.

Because if you look at some of the rules from :

Section XIII—Traveling

A player who receives the ball while standing still may pivot, using either foot as the pivot foot.
A player who gathers the ball while progressing may take (1) two steps in coming to a stop, passing or shooting the ball, or (2) if he has not yet dribbled, one step prior to releasing the ball. A player who gathers the ball while dribbling may take two steps in coming to a stop, passing, or shooting the ball.
The first step occurs when a foot, or both feet, touch the floor after gaining control of the ball.
The second step occurs after the first step when the other foot touches the floor, or both feet touch the floor simultaneously.
A player who comes to a stop on step one when both feet are on the floor or touch the floor simultaneously may pivot using either foot as his pivot. If he jumps with both feet he must release the ball before either foot touches the floor.
A player who lands with one foot first may only pivot using that foot.
A progressing player who jumps off one foot on the first step may land with both feet simultaneously for the second step. In this situation, the player may not pivot with either foot and if one or both feet leave the floor the ball must be released before either returns to the floor.
In starting a dribble after (1) receiving the ball while standing still, or (2) coming to a legal stop, the ball must be out of the player’s hand before the pivot foot is raised off the floor.
If a player, with the ball in his possession, raises his pivot foot off the floor, he must pass or shoot before his pivot foot returns to the floor. If he drops the ball while in the air, he may not be the first to touch the ball.
A player who falls to the floor while holding the ball, or while coming to a stop, may not gain an advantage by sliding.
A player who attempts a field goal may not be the first to touch the ball if it fails to touch the backboard, basket ring or another player.
A player may not be the first to touch his own pass unless the ball touches his back- board, basket ring or another player.
Upon ending his dribble or gaining control of the ball, a player may not touch the floor consecutively with the same foot (hop).
PENALTY: Loss of ball. The ball is awarded to the opposing team on the sideline, nearest spot of the violation but no nearer the baseline than the foul line extended.

You can see that its possible to pivot without stepping, or is this an incorrect assessment of what is being conveyed?

Is pivoting a status of just having an established pivot foot?

After reviewing this a few times it seems like pivoting is more of a status than an action, would you agree it's a status?
2
Texas Topics / Re: Officiating Targeting in TASO/UIL Fooball
« Last post by ElvisLives on Today at 10:38:42 AM »
This is not codified in rule. It is an “interpretation” by TASO based on UIL comments regarding Targeting and disqualifications.
I’ve done what I can to better understand the interpretation, and let you know what they are trying to accomplish. I didn’t invent this, and neither did I vote for this (and I honestly don’t know who did, if anybody). All of you have elected District Directors who DO have the power of the vote. Your next step should be to seek clarification or change through them, if that is desired.

I will be outside straightening things up in the garage…
3
Texas Topics / Re: Officiating Targeting in TASO/UIL Fooball
« Last post by Whodatboy18 on Today at 09:45:10 AM »
Thanks Elvis for the explanation.

I still don't like the change, the old standard of how confident the crew was in the call was sufficient.

The rulebook definition of targeting clearly states “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

The very definition to have a targeting foul requires an attacking of the opponent which is flagrant in nature regardless of whatever else they are or are claiming to be doing.

For example, a safety coming over on a deep pass and taking out the receiver in an attempt to break up the pass is a legitimate football act. However, I would expect everyone to immediately qualify that as a flagrant foul if he "misjudges" and the contact is to the head or neck area due to the physical contact being so severe.

Now we are adding a need for us to judge the player's intent. It isn't possible to be consistent or accurate with this. It really sounds like they are trying to differentiate flagrant and non-flagrant as between forcible contact and really forcible contact.
4
Texas Topics / Re: Officiating Targeting in TASO/UIL Fooball
« Last post by dammitbobby on Today at 09:35:53 AM »
While that's an example of a theoretical 'non-flagrant' targeting, it's just that, an example... it's not a clear directive or interpretation with rules support to determine what is, and is not, flagrant/not flagrant.

They want to align closer to the rulebook definitions of targeting - cool. They're going to be doing a LOT of reviews and probable overturning ejections then, because I imagine the vast majority of officials would agree with Jason and saying targeting = flagrant = DQ, end of discussion, as the rule doesn't allow for intent to be judged as a mitigating factor, since it's a safety foul.

'was not solely intended to punish the opponent' - is that the TASO/UIL standard? If so, why wasn't that codified in the rule?  Let's say in the example given, the receiver was seriously injured and carried off on a body board - does TASO/UIL still want that to be non-flagrant? Because I'm not going to be the one explaining to the coach why yes, it was targeting, but he didn't mean to do it, so he's not DQ'd.
5
Texas Topics / Officiating Targeting in TASO/UIL Fooball
« Last post by ElvisLives on Today at 09:24:30 AM »
I have coordinated this information with other members of the TASO Football Education Committee, who fully concur.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Officiating Targeting in UIL football is now a 2-step process: 1) Determine if the action is Targeting by pure NCAA rule, 2) decide if it is “flagrant” or “non-flagrant.” Yes, there is now an additional judgment to be made regarding the actual Targeting action. If we determine the action to be a foul for Targeting under NCAA 9-1-3 or 9-1-4, then we have already observed and determined that an indicator was present, and there was forcible physical contact. However, we are now to look at the action in its whole, and decide if, in spite of the Targeting elements, the action was part of a legitimate football act, as in the following example:

A88 is attempting to touch a pass when B99 leaps from behind A88 and reaches with his left arm over A88’s left shoulder, attempting to deflect the ball away. At the same time, B99 thrusts his right forearm toward A88, in an attempt to contact A88 in the nameplate area of A88’s back. However, B99 misjudges his ‘aim’ on A88 and contacts A88 in the neck/lower part of A88’s helmet. (Note that whether B99 is successful, or not, in his attempt to deflect the ball, or, that whether, or not, A88 is successful in making the catch, neither are relevant to whether or not B99 has committed a Targting foul.) The B and the L both throw flags for Targeting. The B and L confer, and the B reports that he saw B99 lead with his right arm/shoulder and forcibly contact A88 in the neck/lower head area. The L reports that he also saw the contact to the neck/lower head area, but that B99 was also making a bona fide attempt to deflect the ball. Both officials concur that a (9-1-4) Targeting foul has occurred, but consider this to be a non-flagrant Targeting foul, because B99 was making a legitimate football action, with his attempt to deflect the ball, and the forcible contact, although deliberate, was incidental to making this legitimate football act, and was not solely intended to punish the opponent.

There can certainly be other examples of non-flagrant Targeting, but this example clearly depicts a plausible situation that TASO/UIL would want to be ruled as non-flagrant Targeting.

Had B99 made no effort to deflect the ball, then his action would not be considered a legitimate football act, and would be “flagrant” targeting, resulting in B99’s disqualification from further participation in the game.


6
Texas Topics / Re: targeting guidelines/interps
« Last post by dammitbobby on Yesterday at 08:12:25 PM »
Jason, as soon as I can, I will try to explain Targeting for 2025 TASO football. I am currently coordinating with TASO folks above me, to make sure my explanation is accurate. But, make no mistake, the 2025 interpretation is more complex. Your understanding is pre-2025. Let me leave it at that until I can get coordinated.

Robert

Thanks Elvis, this is exactly why I created this thread... I don't think the full impact of this change has been effectively communicated, and I want to make sure that I (along with everyone else) get it right.
7
Texas Topics / Re: targeting guidelines/interps
« Last post by JasonTX on Yesterday at 04:41:45 PM »
Jason, as soon as I can, I will try to explain Targeting for 2025 TASO football. I am currently coordinating with TASO folks above me, to make sure my explanation is accurate. But, make no mistake, the 2025 interpretation is more complex. Your understanding is pre-2025. Let me leave it at that until I can get coordinated.

Robert

I can remember when the NCAA created the Targeting rule, there was no UIL exception to it.  At some point the UIL saw that officials were hesitant to make the call because, apparently, the officials didn't want to kick a player out of the game, so they just simply didn't throw the flag.  So, to help encourage officials to throw the flag they created this "non-flagrant" category so that officials could make the call but not kick the kid out of the game.  If the UIL wants us to not deem Targeting as flagrant then just tell us that if a player gets 2 in a game, they are disqualified at that point.  The first one is only 15 yards and a second one you are DQ'd, because I have a hard time drawing a line between different levels of targeting.  It either is or it isn't, no in between. 
8
Texas Topics / Re: targeting guidelines/interps
« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 04:13:55 PM »
In my opinion you either have targeting or you don't.  If you have targeting,  the player is disqualified.  If I have an indicator and check the other boxes required for targeting,  then I'm flagging it and the player is disqualified.  If another official comes forward and has information that perhaps the contact was not crown of helmet or not to the head or neck area, then I have a decisions to make.  I could concede and pick the flag up, stick with my call, or decide to go non-flagrant.

Jason, as soon as I can, I will try to explain Targeting for 2025 TASO football. I am currently coordinating with TASO folks above me, to make sure my explanation is accurate. But, make no mistake, the 2025 interpretation is more complex. Your understanding is pre-2025. Let me leave it at that until I can get coordinated.

Robert
9
National Federation Discussion / Re: NFHS app
« Last post by VALJ on Yesterday at 03:36:20 PM »
Just downloaded the new app.  We've traditionally gotten access to the rulebook through the state registration here in VA in the past; hopefully that will carry over to the new app.
10
Texas Topics / Re: targeting guidelines/interps
« Last post by JasonTX on Yesterday at 02:40:43 PM »
In my opinion you either have targeting or you don't.  If you have targeting,  the player is disqualified.  If I have an indicator and check the other boxes required for targeting,  then I'm flagging it and the player is disqualified.  If another official comes forward and has information that perhaps the contact was not crown of helmet or not to the head or neck area, then I have a decisions to make.  I could concede and pick the flag up, stick with my call, or decide to go non-flagrant.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10