[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

There are three differences: the player's intent, the nature of the play being attempted and the changing nature of the game.

When saving the ball, the player's intent is to keep the ball in play when it would obviously otherwise go oob and create a violation. It's a last-ditch effort, a reactionary behavior. He's got nothing to lose, no other choice.

In the case of the pass, he's not reacting to an existing play gone bad, trying to prevent a violation and turnover, he's initiating a new play. And his intent is to do it outside the boundaries of the court. Being beyond the boundary line, as far as possible, is essential to the play's success.

There's also a difference in the nature of the play being made. Saving the ball is an accepted, time-honored part of the game. It's a play we want to preserve.

Contrast that with this pass play. It's more of a rarely seen, trick play. It's certainly not a part of the accepted "playbook" the way saving the ball is. This play is neither deserving nor undeserving of preservation. It should be judged on it merits and discarded if it doesn't pass contemporary muster.

It's been suggested that A1's defender could just as easily jump oob to follow A1 and keep playing defense. Does anybody consider that good defense? Does anybody teach that? At best it's pretty desperate defense. Good defense against the pass is for the receiver's guard to stay between the ball and the receiver. That's rather difficult to do if the ball is beyond the boundary of the court and you're not allowed to go there.

What are kids taught about defending along a boundary line? The boundary is the sixth man. Trap your opponent against the line. The offense can't go any farther than the line. While the defense used to be taught to put one foot on the line, with this new emphasis on playing the game inbounds, they've got to worry about keeping both feet within the lines. We've created a situation where the defense is more conscious than ever before about having to stay in-bounds.

This year's adjustment in this on-going effort is to emphasize the offense playing within the boundaries too. And that's why I think we need to rethink this play. While it was undoubtedly legal in the past, I feel that now it gives the offense an unintended advantage: the opportunity to initiate plays using the space beyond the boundary where nobody is supposed to be playing. It's an advantage that could reasonably be eliminated using this year's most recent rule change.

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Dec 22nd, 2005 at 02:58 PM]

You posted a very good reply.

I am still bewildered as to why this violation is so difficult to comprehend and to implement.