[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I resent the implication that your philosophy conveys--namely that the official is doing something wrong.

They are. This is NOT what the rule was intended to cover.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is, in fact, the player who is breaking the rules and the official is simply doing his assigned duty and penalizing that.

...minus understanding the rule and the purpose it was designed for.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your logic is as bad as the screaming fanboy who blames the official for the failings of his team. It is because of people like you out there that teams continue to infringe the rules and put officials in such situations.

No, I don't make them do anything. I call the infraction when it really occurs, not when something similar to it occurs because I can't tell the difference.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If more people would simply enforce the rules as written, instead of coming up with all kinds of lame excuses for not doing so, then the teams would know that and their actions would reflect that. In other words, if they were fairly certain that they would be penalized, they wouldn't do many of these things.

I tried that...calling it blindly by the letter of the rule..didn't get me very far. I realized that people that call it that way usually stay in JV-land. There is a lot more to understanding the game that reading the rulebook.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS has made their position on this particular rule very clear.

Indeed they have. Too bad you're missing it.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They have insisted that the players remain inbounds during such game action. To fail to adhere to that directive is to do a disservice to the game and your fellow officials. In fact, continual refusal of officials such as yourself to properly penalize players for going OOB at unauthorized times is the main reason that the NFHS lessened the penalty, and yet you still won't make the call. Truly sad.

Again, you completely miss the purpse of the rule and it is clear you'll not understand it. In fact, I have called it and will likely call it again...when the plays even somewhat like those the NFHS describes happen.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS can't say it any clearer than this:

2004-05 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. Player positioning/status. Players must play the game within the confines of the playing court. Otherwise, a tremendous advantage is gained by allowing a team or player more space than allowed. There are two specific areas of concern:
A. Players on the court. Last year's emphasis ensured that defensive players obtain legal guarding position while on the playing court and not while out of bounds. The same principle is in place for all players. Too often, players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example is an offensive player getting around a screen or defensive player by running out of bounds. That is not legal and gives a tremendous advantage to the offense. Officials must enforce the rule that is already in place. It is a technical foul.* Coaches benefit the game by teaching players to play on the court.

OK, let's break this down a little more and figure out what they're really talking about. Note the green text. The reasons given are that a "tremendous advantage" is being gained. The type of situation being address by the rule is a player using OOB and around a screen for the purposes of shaking a defender or a defender going OOB in order to keep up with their man. Did ANY of these things happen in the player we're talking about? No, they didn't. They were not trying to get the ball to that player and the ball was in a location where it was completely irrelevant. What advantage was there? The situations where this rule apples clearly revolve around advantage gained or attempting to be gained, not the simple act of running OOB.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

(* Note: This was the final year that the penalty was a technical foul. It was changed to a violation the following season.)

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

Same story. Note the green text. If you see the whole play, it will be evident what is happening and when it needs to be called.

Again, I ask, do you call 3 seconds right at 3 seconds....every time....no matter what the play situation is? Do you call disconcertion every time a defensive player wiggles their fingers or says something during a FT? Do you carefully observe non-jumpers at the jump ball to ensure they don't move even 1" around the circle before the ball is touched? Do you measure a 3' throwin spot and call a violation if a throw leaves it by 1"? Or, do you approximate it and give the thrower the benefit of doubt unless they blatantly leave the spot? These are all clearly defined vilations but I

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.

Again, you skip the most important part of the rule book....the admonition understand the intent and purpose of the rules and to intelligently apply the rules. If we were to apply it to the letter of the text, that entire preface wouldn't exist.

All of the comments above clearly imply plays where the player in question is gaining an advantage or attempting to gain an advantage. The comments specifially mention that the purpose of the rule is to address an advantage being gained by using the OOB space to their benefit. In no way has the player in this case come close to matching the situations being addressed by this rule or the comments on the rule.