The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 09:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
What about if the screen by the player with a foot OOB results in only incidental contact or no contact at all but sufficiently delays the defender so that the offensive player gains the desired advantage from the screen.

If the contact delays the defender, then it's not incidental. It's a foul, even if the contact was minor.

No contact, no foul.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 10:04am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,538
I guess you could call a violation on the screener. Most of the time that is the offensive player. Not saying that is what should be done, but that is the remedy if you are that worried about a player setting a screen and stepping out of bounds without any contact. I really do not see what else we can do here or should do.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 10:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 562
That would be the classic leaving the court without an authorized reason/out of bounds of his own volition violation, because he went out of bounds illegally, and gained an advantage from doing so.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 12:06pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
Violation ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
... No contact, no foul.
Agree. But how about a 9-3-3 (leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) violation (assuming advantage gained)?
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 12:29pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
Oldest Trick In The Book ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
... the classic leaving the court without an authorized reason ... violation.
Classic? Classic? The Wizard of Oz is a classic movie. Good Vibrations is a classic Beach Boys song. The 1953 Chevrolet Corvette is a classic car.

Almost forty years and I've never observed a player set a screen out of bounds. Never, ever. I only once observed 9-3 (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) being enforced, for an offensive player who went around a screen and almost ran over my partner, as the lead, out of bounds. Classic? How often do you see this play to call it a classic?

Probably more appropriate to do your best Maxwell Smart impersonation? "Ah, it's the old set a screen out of bounds trick."



(How about that Barbara Feldon?)

https://youtu.be/fy33kNEIwgw
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Sep 03, 2018 at 05:08pm.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 02:36pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
Hypothetical Situation ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
... if the screen by the player with a foot OOB results in ... no contact at all but sufficiently delays the defender so that the offensive player gains the desired advantage from the screen.
So I've been thinking about the "no contact/off the playing court/advantage gained/leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" situation with a slightly different slant (guarding rather then screening) than the one we've been discussing.

Ball handler A1 is advancing the ball in his backcourt. Knowing that the ten second count in winding down, he quickly heads toward the right sideline hoping to get across the division line. At the last second, defender B1 cuts him off at the right sideline, with no contact, but the defender has one foot out of bounds. A1 retreats with a reverse dribble and then heads toward the division line, but due to the slight delay caused by the illegally (9-3) out or bounds defender B1, the official sounds his whistle for a ten second violation.

Is the defender illegally (9-3) off the playing court? Yes. Does the defender illegally gain and advantage by this act? Yes. Can a blocking foul be called on the defender? No, there was no contact.

Before calling the ten second violation, should the official have called a violation on defender B1 for illegally leaving the court for an unauthorized reason (9-3) that resulted in the defender gaining an illegal advantage that caused ball handler to later violate?

Maybe some these "classic" situations are not as cut and dry as some of us would like to believe.

Should we be ruling 9-3 on a screen set out of bounds, that with no contact, slows down and disadvantages the screened defender?

Odd, very rare, situations? Yes. "Classic"? No. But, inquiring minds still want to know.

Do we need to put up chicken wire around the playing court to keep the players on the playing court?





That's why basketball players are called "cagers" (I bet a lot of you young'uns didn't know that).

When Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. started officiating, he was in charge of walking around the perimeter of the playing court, making sure that there were no gaps in the chicken wire, and that there were no chickens on the playing court. It's true. It's true.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Sep 03, 2018 at 03:03pm.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 05:04pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
Extrapolate ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
Should we be ruling 9-3 on a screen set out of bounds, that with no contact, slows down and disadvantages the screened defender?
My point is simply this. For many years, we've known that in a guarding situation, a defender must have both feet on the playing court, and if he doesn't, and if there is any contact, no matter how "legal" everything else is, the defender is always called for a blocking foul.

4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.

Many of us never thought to extrapolate that to say that a defender in such a situation, with a foot on the boundary line, and no contact, should be called for a 9-3 (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) violation if the defender gains any advantage.

Now we have a new (modified) rule, and interpretation. In a screening situation, a screener must have both feet on the playing court, and if he doesn't, and if there is any contact, no matter how "legal" everything else is, the screener is to be called for a
blocking foul.

4.40.2: SITUATION: A1 sets a stationary screen with one foot on or outside a boundary line. B1 makes contact with A1 in the torso. RULING: A blocking foul is ruled on A1 because a player may not be out-of-bounds while setting a legal screen.

Now a few of us want to jump on the bandwagon and extrapolate that to say that a screener in such a situation, with a foot on the boundary line, and no contact, should be called for a 9-3 (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) violation if the screener gains any advantage.

Does the NFHS want us to make either of those non-contact assumptions?

Inquiring minds want to know.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Sep 03, 2018 at 10:27pm.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 03, 2018, 11:39pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
All the case plays for 9.3.3 involve the player completely leaving the court. Does anybody ever call this under any circumstances for a player with a foot on the line?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2018, 05:25am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
Let's Go To The Videotape ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
All the case plays for 9.3.3 involve the player completely leaving the court. Does anybody ever call this under any circumstances for a player with a foot on the line?
9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

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)

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an
uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally
runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should
continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal
defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for
an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a
period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily
ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is
not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul
for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Sep 04, 2018 at 05:44am.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2018, 05:31am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules ???

4-23-2-A: To obtain an initial legal guarding position: The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.

4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position.

4-40-1: A screen is legal action by a player who, while touching the playing court, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

4.40.2: SITUATION: A1 sets a stationary screen with one foot on or outside a boundary line. B1 makes contact with A1 in the torso. RULING: A blocking foul is ruled on A1 because a player may not be out-of-bounds while setting a legal screen.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Sep 04, 2018 at 05:45am.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2018, 03:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
All the case plays for 9.3.3 involve the player completely leaving the court. Does anybody ever call this under any circumstances for a player with a foot on the line?
Yes. Many of you are forgetting one play for which this rule really applies (IMO). The throw-in with end-line run. The offense is down and runs the play to draw a foul on the player guarding the inbounder. Happens to me about once every 5 years. Offensive player or screener is usually very near the endline. Needs to have both feet inbounds now or automatic block.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2018, 04:23pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
A Real Play That Really Could Happen ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Many of you are forgetting one play for which this rule really applies. The throw-in with end-line run. The offense is down and runs the play to draw a foul on the player guarding the inbounder. Happens to me about once every 5 years. Offensive player or screener is usually very near the endline. Needs to have both feet inbounds now or automatic block.
Nice catch bucky. Thanks.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2018, 04:28pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,458
Contact ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
All the case plays for 9.3.3 involve the player completely leaving the court. Does anybody ever call this under any circumstances for a player with a foot on the line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
Yes.
bucky: just another ref was talking about the non-contact 9-3-3 violation (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason).

Doesn't your "Yes" answer refer to a contact (screening) situation?

4.40.2: SITUATION: A1 sets a stationary screen with one foot on or outside a boundary line. B1 makes contact with A1 in the torso. RULING: A blocking foul is ruled on A1 because a player may not be out-of-bounds while setting a legal screen.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Sep 04, 2018 at 04:57pm.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2018, 07:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
bucky: just another ref was talking about the non-contact 9-3-3 violation (A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason).

Doesn't your "Yes" answer refer to a contact (screening) situation?

4.40.2: SITUATION: A1 sets a stationary screen with one foot on or outside a boundary line. B1 makes contact with A1 in the torso. RULING: A blocking foul is ruled on A1 because a player may not be out-of-bounds while setting a legal screen.
And, if there's no contact, that play is NOT a violation. If it were to be a violation, then the violation would happen as soon as A1 sets the screen (and that would be before the contact). The violation would make the ball dead and the (non-F, non-I) contact would be ignored. Since this IS NOT what happened (the play is allowed to continue to the contact), the initial stance is NOT a violation.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2018, 11:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,479
It's been great watching billy converse with himself. This post could be a whole 10-12 posts instead of 29.

However, I would cringe if a partner of mine called a "leaving the court" violation here.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Revised Rule 4-42-5a Freddy Basketball 50 Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:56pm
Is this legal in NFHS? voiceoflg Football 20 Thu Sep 26, 2013 01:01pm
Can a secondary defender obtain a legal screening position in the Restricted Area? MiamiWadeCounty Basketball 5 Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:34am
NBA Logo Legal in NFHS? NathanRT Basketball 16 Thu Feb 07, 2008 08:10pm
NFHS OBS Revised Rule whiskers_ump Softball 4 Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:26pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1