NFHS Revised Legal Screening Rule

[Freddy]

Assuming, for the sake of illustration, that everything else he did was legal, this screener's foot was OOB, this would, by the revised wording of the screening rule 4-40-1, be a blocking foul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwo4R2S8qbQ

Right?

(I must like using commas...)

EDIT: Link, fixed, now, I, think.

[bob jenkins]

bad, link,

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

bad, link,

Link, fixed,

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Indeed, I was referring to a screening situation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's been great watching billy converse with himself.

Because I'm not quite ready to jump on the "9-3-3 violation (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) bandwagon" every time a player has part of one foot on a boundary in a noncontact situation (guarding and/or screening). It appeared that some were ready to jump on ("classic"). Not me.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because I'm not quite ready to jump on the "9-3-3 violation (a player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason) bandwagon" every time a player has part of one foot on a boundary in a noncontact situation (guarding and/or screening). It appeared that some were ready to jump on ("classic"). Not me.

IMO...

That whole "unauthorized reason" stuff is for players just taking off in the middle of a game for reasons that do not even apply to the game %99 of the time. It was written to prevent/penalize the stupid actions that made a mockery of the game. Things like running out a hallway door on one side and coming back in the other side. It isn't for actual actions on the court. Otherwise, we could apply that dozens of times in a game like a player saving a ball from going OOB, going OOB during a lay-up, falling OOB after being fouled, etc.. Those are all authorized actions being part of the game and so would someone having a foot OOB when setting a screen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

That whole "unauthorized reason" stuff is for players just taking off in the middle of a game for reasons that do not even apply to the game 99% of the time. It was written to prevent/penalize the stupid actions that made a mockery of the game. Things like running out a hallway door on one side and coming back in the other side. It isn't for actual actions on the court. Otherwise, we could apply that dozens of times in a game like a player saving a ball from going OOB, going OOB during a lay-up, falling OOB after being fouled, etc.. Those are all authorized actions being part of the game and so would someone having a foot OOB when setting a screen.

Sounds good to me.

Would this (below) be a real violation of 9-9-3?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

At the time, I liked my partner's call because I almost called it before a foul switch when the same player, using the same play, almost ran me over when I was the lead. I remember telling myself, "If he does that again, I'm calling the violation". My partner, with no communication from me, beat me to the punch.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

"unauthorized reason" stuff is for players just taking off in the middle of a game... prevent/penalize the stupid actions that made a mockery of the game. Things like running out a hallway door on one side and coming back in the other side.

bucky is probably referring to this play:

[ilyazhito]

Re: saving a ball from going out of bounds, that is an authorized reason to go out of bounds (or at least towards the boundary line). The other autheorized reason is substitution). Any other reasons are not.

In NCAA rules, the "guy in the hallway" play would be blown dead as soon as the player received the ball to shoot. The Lead would give the delayed violation signal,and blow the whistle (unless C detected the disappeared player re-appearing). In NFHS, his actions would merit a technical foul. While I would not necessarily call a technical foul for a screen set out of bounds, I would call an illegal screen if a player attempted to set a screen out of bounds, because, by rule, he cannot do so legally, just like a player cannot legally take a charge standing on or inside the restricted area arc (no-charge semicircle) in those games that use the arc [unless the offensive player does some other illegal action].

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Re: saving a ball from going out of bounds, that is an authorized reason to go out of bounds (or at least towards the boundary line). The other authorized reason is substitution. Any other reasons are not.

Any other reasons are not? C'mon ilyazhito. Really? You've got to be kidding. Right? I can think of dozens of other authorized reasons that are not violations. Let's just start with going of of bounds to make a throwin after a foul, or a violation. How about after a made basket? How about a dozen different plays when the momentum of a hustling player without the ball takes him out of bounds, sometimes sliding on the floor? How about a player, with no contact, stepping on a boundary line in an attempt to guard an opponent, or again with no contact, to set a screen for a teammate (the main topic of this thread and maybe subject to debate)?

Listing just two authorized reasons (saving ball and substitution) and calling "any other" unauthorized is utterly ridiculous.

[ilyazhito]

Saving the ball, substitutions, and throw-ins I understand, but what other legal reason would a player have to be out-of-bounds during a live ball?

Perhaps being out of bounds without a legitimate reason is illegal because a player can use the boundary to his advantage to avoid defenders. If a player cannot go out of bounds during play, or guard another player from out of bounds (drawing a charge from OOB is inpossible, because the rule says 2 feet on the floor, inbounds, facing an opponent, to establish LGP), then a player cannot set a screen out of bounds, not to mention setting a screen with contact.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Saving the ball, substitutions, and throw-ins I understand, but what other legal reason would a player have to be out-of-bounds during a live ball?

Now you've gone from two reasons to three reasons.

How about the fore mentioned situations when the momentum of hustling players, offensive players, and/or defensive players, without the ball, takes them out of bounds, sometimes sliding on the floor, or ending up sprawled all over the bleachers?

We've even allowed players (see above) without the ball who have accidentally or unintentionally gone out of bounds to legally come back inbounds, with just one foot inbounds and the other foot off the floor, and gain possession of the ball (some erroneously believe that it must be two feet inbounds).

Let's even consider the ultra-extreme, very rare situation of a sick player who runs off the court to use a restroom. Calling a violation here will not end well, probably with you telling the coach that he has to sit on the cold bus in the parking lot for the rest of the night.

We can't be calling violations every time a player without the ball accidentally or unintentionally steps on a boundary line. I'm fairly positive that that's not the intent of the NFHS.

Trickery situations? Sure. Unsporting situations? Sure. Noncontact guarding/screening advantage situations? Possibly debatable (the main topic of this thread).

There's probably a good reason why I've only seen this (9-3-3) called once, and never called it myself, in almost forty years of officiating basketball games and observing others officiate basketball games (plus another twenty-five years of coaching). Is it possible that in all of these games that a player without the ball only once stepped on a boundary line? Were all of these games officiated by incompetent officials?

[ilyazhito]

Billy, I don't think that the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" rule was designed to prevent players from leaving the court UNintentionally. Rather, it was designed to prevent players from leaving the court intentionally to gain an illegal advantage, to show disgust and/or resentment to the officials, or for other reasons not specified (perhaps to prevent a Malice in the Palace situation from occurring in a HS game) . Only intentional leaving of the court is disallowed in NCAA (the violation is for leaving the court of one's own volition), so it would not be a stretch to assume that the NFHS rule is to be enforced in a similar manner, barring a contrary case play or official interpretation from the NFHS.

In your situation (a player getting sick on the court), the covering official would stop play immediately, unless the opponents of the injured/sick player have an advantage and immediately use it), leaving the court for an unauthorized reason would not apply, because there are other procedures covering that situation. In my previous answer, I emphasized that a player might not have many valid and legal reasons for leaving the court, because a team member may go to change his jersey outside the visual confines of the court, an injured team member can leave the court for treatment, etc.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That would be the classic leaving the court without an authorized reason/out of bounds ...

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... saving a ball from going out of bounds, that is an authorized reason to go out of bounds (or at least towards the boundary line). The other authorized reason is substitution). Any other reasons are not.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Saving the ball, substitutions, and throw-ins I understand, but what other legal reason would a player have to be out-of-bounds during a live ball?

While in this thread you have evolved from highly restricted reasons for leaving the court legally to slightly less restrictive reasons, I suggest that you continue to evolve. I've answered your posts with lots of legal reasons why a player could leave the court.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I don't think that the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" rule was designed to prevent players from leaving the court unintentionally.

Now that's what I like to hear.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... a player might not have many valid and legal reasons for leaving the court ...

Now your going backwards. The scarcity of the 9-3-3 call has to give you a pretty good idea that leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason is a very rare call. Why? Probably because there are a hell of a lot more legal reasons why a player would leave the court than there are illegal reasons for a player to leave the court.

I suggest that you approach this from another angle.

Rather than trying to make up a list of legal reasons for a player to leave the court (as you have in this thread, believing that it will be a very short list) try making up a list of situations where it would be illegal to leave the court. You'll probably find that the later will be a much shorter list, especially if you stick to real life game situations, not the odd situations like the "out the door" play.

Like I already said, almost forty years and only one 9-3-3 call in my games. There's got to be a reason.

Use the combined experiences of Forum members to your advantage. I've learned a lot from the members of this Forum, you can teach a old dog new tricks.

[deecee]

Sometimes I think some of you officiate basketball on a different planet than I ever did...