[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

It's not the same thing; the intent is very different.

The guiding principle here is that the game is to be played within the boundaries of the court. Rules changes and guidance given by the NFHS over the past couple years makes this quite clear.

When a player goes oob to save a ball, his intent is to keep the play in-bounds; he is making an extraordinary attempt to remain within the letter and spirit of rules of the game.

Jumping out of bounds to then make a pass demonstrates clear intent to play the game outside the boundaries of the court. By jumping oob, A1 is all but guaranteed a clear passing lane. That's an advantage that I don't believe was intended by the rules committee. [/B]

Um, isn't the player who made that pass actually playing the game within the boundary of the court when he made the pass, as per rule 4-35-3?

And another um, when a player jumps OOB to make a pass, you're telling me that the player's intent isn't also to keep the play inbounds- same as saving a ball?

And the 3rd. um....when was A1 actually OOB when he made a pass?

Sorry, but I don't think I'm gonna buy any of those rationalizations. Maybe try citing a rule that will back up any kind of a violation call. I can't think of one. [/B][/QUOTE]Well, I don't have my book, so I can't give you the exact citation, but it's something like 9-2-2: Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is a violation. As soon as A1 touches oob he's left the court. The only real debate is whether he's left for an authorized or an unauthorized reason.

Let me address each of your three ums:

1. As you have pointed out, according to the rule at the time of the pass he is technically inbounds. Until he lands. And when he lands, the official has a decision to make. Was his leaving the court authorized or unauthorized? He certainly didn't request permission to leave the court, per 3-1-2. If you want to judge this strictly on the rules, I think you have to call this a violation. The rule says a player cannot leave the court for an unauthorized reason and clearly grants any player the right to "address an official to request...permission to leave the court," which this player failed to do. Now we both know that reality is not this pedantic.

While the player clearly has in-bounds status, whether he is playing the game within the boundaries of the court is another matter entirely. And it's a matter that I believe has a lot to do with whether the reason for leaving the court was authorized or not.

2. No, the intent is clearly not the same. In the case of saving a ball, the player is reacting; in the case of jumping oob to make the pass, he is initiating.

Saving the ball oob is an act of desperation to prevent a clearly impending violation. We rightly applaud this play because it smacks of extraordinary effort and personal heroics. A player puts himself at some amount of personal risk physically and at a competitive disadvantage all for the good of the team. We label that good hustle. It has long been an accepted part of the game and is clearly the poster child in the discussion about when a player may legally leave the court.

Jumping oob to make a pass around the defense is a conscious effort to advance a team's position by utilizing the space outside the boundary as a clear passing lane. There is a good reason this is a clear passing lane: the defense is not allowed to play out there. This play smacks of exploiting the rules and unintended advantage. It's not a widely accepted part of the game. It certainly wasn't mentioned by the NFHS as being acceptable play the way saving the ball was.

3. I'm not disputing 4-35-3.

It is abundantly clear to me that over the past 2-3 years the NFHS has consciously injected the notion of playing the game within the boundaries of the court into the rules and the philosophies behind them. They have stated it plainly in their own commentary.

The recent rule changes regarding the defender being on the oob line illustrate this. Why can the defender not have legal guarding position while touching the line? Because it is not legal to utilize the oob area to play defense. It puts the offense at a disadvantage.

The POE and rule change regarding leaving the court without authorization illustrate this too. Why can the offense not go oob to circumvent a screen? Because it is not legal to utilize the oob area to play offense. It puts the defense at a disadvantage.

This playing the game strictly within the boundaries of the court idea is a recent development that is slowly being explored by the rules committee and encoded into the rules. I believe we need to rethink this play in light of the new emphasis. I believe it violates the philosophy of maintaining balance by forcing both teams to play inbounds.

While the rules clearly say he's inbounds at the time of the pass, the kid can't stay in the air forever. And when he lands he has left the court. For an unauthorized reason.