Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
Ok BITS, I cringed a little when I asked the question, because I knew where you were going. But I think you might be over-thinking this a little. In the original play, and most of the variations, the actual "play" is legal, as per the rule that states the status of the ball and player are where they were when they last touched. The resulting action (momentum) takes the player OOB. There is no difference between the player falling OOB to save the ball and the player making the pass; both know they are going OOB, deliberately. In fact, aren't both players making a pass? You have just added requirements about intent vs. "an accepted, time-honored part of the game". I didn't see that distinction made in the rule book, case book, or any of the comments made by the NF. The only play specifically mentioned was the player going around a screen OOB. This example is a completely voluntary, under-control move. Also, the NF didn't expand on the play regarding the defense standing with one foot OOB; it didn't become an immediate violation, but it has been left with the ruling that if there's contact it cannot be a charge.
So until we get more examples of the Fed's intent, I will be content to just call the examples as mentioned in the rules, casebook, and comments. Let's not try to over-think things. I know when I do, I get a headache! 
|
So if an offensive player just runs out of bounds without running around a screen, you won't call this act a violation?
You have to credit good defense if the offense violates by utilizing the out of bounds to gain an advantage.
The example by the NFHS was a "typical" example and not the one and only.
I can create many examples where this violation can be applied, such as A1 dribbles along the sideline, then bouncing the ball between B1's legs, leaves the court going around B1 and continuing his/her dribble.