Going out of bounds: 9-3

[wyo96]

I cannot find the rule reference (or case play) for not calling a violation when a player goes out of bounds when bumped.

A1 is running the baseline, gets a little incidental contact that causes him to take a step or 2 out of bounds, comes back in and catches the pass. I know this is not a violation, but 9-3-3 just says "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason".

Is there a past interp I am missing, or is just applying the judgement that contact makes it "authorized"? Can someone direct me to the correct place?

Had a coach make a big deal about it this weekend.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by wyo96

I cannot find the rule reference (or case play) for not calling a violation when a player goes out of bounds when bumped.

A1 is running the baseline, gets a little incidental contact that causes him to take a step or 2 out of bounds, comes back in and catches the pass. I know this is not a violation, but 9-3-3 just says "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason".

Is there a past interp I am missing, or is just applying the judgement that contact makes it "authorized"? Can someone direct me to the correct place?

Had a coach make a big deal about it this weekend.

"Okay, coach." Tweet. "Block, B1."

[BigT]

Originally Posted by wyo96

I cannot find the rule reference (or case play) for not calling a violation when a player goes out of bounds when bumped.

A1 is running the baseline, gets a little incidental contact that causes him to take a step or 2 out of bounds, comes back in and catches the pass. I know this is not a violation, but 9-3-3 just says "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason".

Is there a past interp I am missing, or is just applying the judgement that contact makes it "authorized"? Can someone direct me to the correct place?

Had a coach make a big deal about it this weekend.

Did he nail a three? Did he gain any advantage? Coach I skipped on the block because it didnt affect the play. Ok coach we are moving on. Or hey just say ok and keep refereeing. I think you did the right thing. If I have a player run out I warn them to stay in bounds. If they get a wide open 3 I call out of bounds on them. Coach asks I say it is a T but I dont want to call it. They normally let me move on.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by wyo96

I cannot find the rule reference (or case play) for not calling a violation when a player goes out of bounds when bumped.

A1 is running the baseline, gets a little incidental contact that causes him to take a step or 2 out of bounds, comes back in and catches the pass. I know this is not a violation, but 9-3-3 just says "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason".

Is there a past interp I am missing, or is just applying the judgement that contact makes it "authorized"? Can someone direct me to the correct place?

Had a coach make a big deal about it this weekend.

The player did not leave the court "voluntarily" is the word used in case plays. If i shoot layup and continue OOB because of momentum i have not left court for unauthorized reason. 7.1.1b and a few others in that area.

A player bumped OOB is not voluntarily leaving..and thus "unauthorized."

[Adam]

"Authorized reason" is not really defined, but it's generally understood as "on purpose" (with some other requirements as well). Don't go looking for reasons to call it, as it should pretty much call itself, and you're not going to want to call it even when it does.

If this situation applied, as UNI notes, you should get the foul on that bump.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The player did not leave the court "voluntarily" is the word used in case plays. If i shoot layup and continue OOB because of momentum i have not left court for unauthorized reason. 7.1.1b and a few others in that area.

A player bumped OOB is not voluntarily leaving..and thus "unauthorized."

I would be careful about voluntarily. Momentum is the natural result of a voluntary action. The player voluntarily chose to take a layup that would carry them OOB after releasing the shot.

It is close, but not really accurate.

Originally Posted by Adam

"Authorized reason" is not really defined, but it's generally understood as "on purpose" (with some other requirements as well). Don't go looking for reasons to call it, as it should pretty much call itself, and you're not going to want to call it even when it does.

If this situation applied, as UNI notes, you should get the foul on that bump.

This would be closer, IMO.

It is a violation when player chooses (or volunteers) to go OOB as an independent act.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a violation when player chooses (or volunteers) to go OOB as an independent act.

I like this distinction. It verbalizes the way we approach it. Otherwise, a player leaping out of bounds to "save" the ball would be considered to be violating the rule. That's obviously not what the rule is meant to address.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I would be careful about voluntarily. Momentum is the natural result of a voluntary action. The player voluntarily chose to take a layup that would carry them OOB after releasing the shot.

It is close, but not really accurate.



This would be closer, IMO.

It is a violation when player chooses (or volunteers) to go OOB as an independent act.

Voluntarily means "own free will." case plays say momentum is not voluntary. Therefore not unauthorized. I might be able to choose better words but I use, and always recommend to others that they use, the words from the book. Here, the book uses voluntary/voluntarily. I think if I was sitting at a table with folks having 10 minute discussion I'd get to describing it as independent act etc. Telling a coach in 5 seconds I'm going to say " he didn't leave "voluntarily." Look it up rule 7 case book."

[BillyMac]

9.3.3 SITUATION A: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane.
A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second
count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. RULING:
A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.
(9-7)

9.3.3 SITUATION B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally
goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained
by the double screen. RULING: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as
he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot
nearest to where the violation occurred.

9.3.3 SITUATION C: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally
goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and
A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3's try is in flight. RULING: B3 is called for
a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot
nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the
ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will
count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

[Adam]

Coach is probably making a big deal for one of two reasons.

1. He was reading the rule book on Friday and discovered something.
2. Someone called it that way recently and he thinks *that guy* was right and you were wrong, especially now that it would have benefited his team.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

Coach is probably making a big deal for one of two reasons.

1. He was reading the rule book on Friday and discovered something.
2. Someone called it that way recently and he thinks *that guy* was right and you were wrong, especially now that it would have benefited his team.

Or...he's just an ass.....

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by wyo96

I cannot find the rule reference (or case play) for not calling a violation when a player goes out of bounds when bumped.

A1 is running the baseline, gets a little incidental contact that causes him to take a step or 2 out of bounds, comes back in and catches the pass. I know this is not a violation, but 9-3-3 just says "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason".

Is there a past interp I am missing, or is just applying the judgement that contact makes it "authorized"? Can someone direct me to the correct place?

Had a coach make a big deal about it this weekend.

What would you do in these two situations?
1. A1 is holding the ball high looking to pass when B1 bellys up with a little
incidental contact that causes A1 to take a step (or 2) with his pivot
foot?
2. B5 places his hand on the hip of post player A5 who does not have the
ball. A5 then receives a pass and B5 continues to keep his hand on the
hip of A5.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by billyu2

What would you do in these two situations?
1. A1 is holding the ball high looking to pass when B1 bellys up with a little
incidental contact that causes A1 to take a step (or 2) with his pivot
foot?
2. B5 places his hand on the hip of post player A5 who does not have the
ball. A5 then receives a pass and B5 continues to keep his hand on the
hip of A5.

1-DOG
2-I would say hands...if he controls the ball or slows the player I am ready to call a foul depending on how easily he scores...

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by BigT

1-DOG
2-I would say hands...if he controls the ball or slows the player I am ready to call a foul depending on how easily he scores...

In 1, I don't think it's during a throw-in.

[wyo96]

Originally Posted by billyu2

What would you do in these two situations?
1. A1 is holding the ball high looking to pass when B1 bellys up with a little
incidental contact that causes A1 to take a step (or 2) with his pivot
foot?
2. B5 places his hand on the hip of post player A5 who does not have the
ball. A5 then receives a pass and B5 continues to keep his hand on the
hip of A5.

1: It is not incidental if B1 causes the travel. FOUL.

2: Not relevant to the OP, but talk him out of it or foul.

The key to the OP is I deemed it incidental, so what happens next.

I understand that each official may have a slightly difference tolerance for IC.