Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Oz Referee
EG-Italy.....you absolutely can use 46.13 to invent a new type of violation. That is the specific intent of the this provision, so that the referee can make a judgement on anything that is not specifically covered in the rules - whether it be a violation, foul etc. Otherwise, what's the point of this rule?
|
I don't think so. The point of the rule is to give support to officials in case something happens which couldn't be thought of in advance when writing the rules. You can't devise a new kind of violation: they are part of playing technique, everybody has to know how basketball is played, and they are precisely described in the rules.
Nothing in the present rules suggests that it is disallowed to play OOB. Coaches teach to put a foot OOB when defending on a player who's dribbling along the sideline and the same Fred Horgan says this is allowed; you can "play OOB" during a throw in after a basket. Last, the rule about going OOB deliberately to obtain an advantage has been canceled.
Personally I still continue to consider this worthy of a warning and a T after that (or an immediate T if blatant). But I would be very careful to use the elastic power to say "violation for going OOB". There's only one case when "going OOB" is a violation and it's very different: it's 17.3.2 (breaking the plane during a throw in) and has actually nothing to do with being OOB, since a player can violate even being in bounds.
My main point is: that rule existed (T after warning or immediate T). Since it's not there any more, there are two cases: (a) they forgot to carry it over during a revision; (b) they don't think it's illegal.
I'm with (a), let's wait for the people in Geneva to wake up.
Ciao