NF Please.

A1 is on the end line OOB with the ball preparing to attempt a spot throw in. A2 is in the paint. A2 proceeds to run OOB Behind A1 and returns in play near the sideline ready to receive a pass.

I went with a throw in violation but should or COULD I have had a tech?

Rule Book

9-2-12 No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated spot throw in begins.

Penalty: Violation

But the book also says this:

10-3-3 A Player Shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

Anyone have any other references to this sitch and how would have you called it.

Larks
VIT

We just discussed this in another thread - http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10355
Despite Nevada's creative interp, it is a violation as soon as the player leaves the court on an inbounds play. Clearly if this was an "unauthorized reason" as covered under 10-3-3, there would be no need for 9-2-12. And there can be no delay if you call the initial violation, so the amount of time OOB or where they went while OOB is not relevant.

I think that most agreed that 10-3-3 exists for other situations, but not the inbounds play.

yeah, thats what I was thinking. Tech seems pretty harsh here. Thanks for the thread reference.

Whew!! For a minute there, I was hearing that funny beeping sound, and that voice...

..Another dimension, another time, another trip into...

THe TWILIGHT ZONE!!

Hawks Coach,
Well, now that you have called my interpretation creative :rolleyes:, I have to disagree with your understanding of this rule.

The crux of your opinion rests on it being an immediate violation as soon as the player steps OOB.
The logic of this type of argument has been shown to be incorrect by another throw-in situation.

Many have argued that when a defender steps through the OOB plane during a throw-in and fouls the thrower, it should not be a intentional foul because as soon as the defender breaks the OOB plane with any part of his body this constitutes an immediate throw-in violation and a warning for delay should be called.
This line of reasoning has been shot down by casebook play 10.3.12 Situation C. The same is true for reaching through and slapping the ball; just look at the casebook plays above this one.

Basically, you have to see the whole play in order to make the proper call. If this means you hold the whistle an extra couple of seconds to see what the player does after going OOB, fine.
Look again at the actions of A2 in Larks's play:Sure seems a heck of a lot like casebook play 10.3.4 Situation B to me! The call there is a T.

Therefore, I believe that the proper call for Larks's play under NFHS rules is a technical foul on A2 for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.
The violation is there to cover situations like 9.2.9 and when a team throws an OOB pass between teammates when it doesn't have the right to run the endline.

On a final note, Hawks Coach, I do value your opinions, and since you have shown yourself to be such a knowledge seeking and conscientious person I have taken the extra time to include clear rule citations in this post, which I hope will convince you to reconsider your thoughts on this play. Obviously, I know that you will take the time to check these casebook plays.
I look forward to your response.

Nevada, this is not a good example because this rule is spelled out much more specifically than the one about leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. Furthermore, Larks doesn't tell us whether the player left the court to get around any defense, or was just sort of drifting over the line without knowing exactly where his feet were.

It seems to me that we should give a technical to make the game better. If the player can be stopped from his illegal action with a violation call, that's better than using a technical. Why make everyone angry and gain nothing? I know you don't agree with this philosophy, and you are entitled to call the technical if you want to, I suppose. Maybe that's what's best in your area and with your assignor. Around here, it wouldn't be good game management.

As I've said before, I don't call this the first time I see it from a team. I know that seems unreasonably flexible to some, but when I've seen it in the past, it has been clear that neither the coach nor the players knew the rule, and as soon as I told them, they stopped. If it's clearly giving a large advantage, I may. But usually, the kids are just being cute and aren't really gaining much. For instance, in Larks' play, did the kids really gain anything? We can't tell. If there was heavy defensive pressure, then perhaps you call it. Otherwise, I'll just wait for the first opportunity to warn them.

This is just my way of looking at it. Since the rule book covers the specific situation and tells you to call a violation on a throw-in, that is what I will do on a spot throw-in play. However, the example given for the T is when the ball is live in-bounds. I will follow those guidelines and only call the T for a player leaving the court (for an unauthorized reason) when the ball is live in-bounds.

Nevada
And I apologize for labeling your interpretation as creative. It is simply different than mine - point taken.

I have read the casebook and respectfully disagree that the case you cite sounds the same. Case in this thread is A1 OOB with ball in hand, waiting to inbound, and A2 runs OOB and fails to return promptly. In this case, a remedy was provided at the point the player stepped OOB under 9-2-12.

B under 10.3.4 is A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and obtains an unfair advantage by failing to come inbounds promptly. In this case, you cannot invoke 9-2-12, because the ball is already inbounds. Thus the need for 10-3-3. They are similar, but different in an important enough way that there are different rules that apply, IMO.

As for the inbounds delay comparison, I would say this. If you break the plane, wave around after the ball for a second or two, then make contact, the warning should already have been given and this should not be a T. The violation occurred when the plane was broken, and there was sufficient time to stop play and note the violation. If the plane is broken and the ball contacted in one continuous motion or something approximating one motion, then the T is awarded.

I think that is how the rule on delays is worded and intended, and again, I do not think this parallels in any way the two separate provisions on players being OOB.

Many of the points that Hawks Coach mentions, I recently made in the original thread. Just a suggestion, but it might be easier to continue this conversation in a single thread. If there's more to say about this particular case, it might help reduce duplication of effort if we post them at http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10355

Chuck - but I like this thread :)

Seriously, I know you and other made these points, but I was asked my opinion and just shared the same thoughts that others have on this subject. Don't care what thread you go to, the position is pretty clear.

Agreed, Coach. I wasn't trying to say my points were better or first. Just trying to get all the posts on the relevant subject into one thread.

But hey, you like this party better, keep rockin'. :)

Making law is fun
 

and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Right?

Casebook 10.3.4A tells us that leaving the lane out-of-bounds to escape a 3-second violation is . . . not a violation . . . it's a T. Well, I am a bear on such things, the veritable king of stopping endline B.S., but I call all the variations of this, especially the inbounder running to the other corner to take a 3, violations.

Consider, by way of analogy, the change in the penalty for whipping of the elbows with nobody in the vicinity. It was specifically changed to a violation from a T because nobody in their right mind wanted to call a T in that circumstance.

10.3.4 (the T) is best reserved for extreme situations. For example, some player gets pissed off at a father in the third row of the stands and leaves the court to tell him so during a live ball. Bang, T.

Re: Making law is fun
 

Yes, but this does not seem to me to be a case of foolish consistency. . .

Wow. Uh, what possible justification do you have for this? The reason it's a T in the 3-seconds case is specifically b/c you can't call a violation if the player's not in the lane. So it has to be a foul. In the case of the case you mention above, there again is no violation committed, so it has to be a foul. Why would you go out of your way to incorrectly penalize an obvious case?

Yeah, but nobody called it a violation while it was still listed as a T! That would've been an obviously incorrect penalty. Just as your first example above.

No, 10.3.4B (last year's casebook, sorry) is best reserved for the exact play that you describe: the inbounder running OOB before popping open for an open shot. That's exactly the play that is discussed in that case, and the penalty is specifically said to be a T.

If you get one of Hawks Coach's games, what are you going to do when you call the violation on his opponent, and Hawks Coach (who knows the rule) asks you what the violation was for? You're screwed. Just call it correctly. It makes it so much easier.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias
It sure makes a difference if there's an evaluator in the stands,too. Or your assignor. They don't mind someone using judgement as to <b>whether</b> a rule should be called,or not. They kinda frown on officials who make up their own rules,though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias Quote: Just call it correctly. It makes it so much easier.

I guess another thought....how many of us have been to camp and heard a clinician say "good no-call" after a made basket from a play in the post. There was a foul. It was obvious but there was no advantage gained. Admit it...how many of you have waited to see if the ball goes in and when it doesnt, came strong with a late whistle?

Point is Judgement. In my original play, I called throw in violation although it ran thru my mind that T was a possibility which is why I brought it up here originally. In my mind, violation was the perfect (and looks like correct) call. A wasnt overly penalized and I think we mostly all agree a T here would not have made the game any better and according to what I read, wrong.

Actually, a nice way to handle the leaving the lane
 

out of bounds to avoid the 3-second call is just to make the 3-second call. Guerilla justice.

Regarding the 'swing elbows' analogy,
 

before they wisely changed the rule, I occasionally would whistle that circumstance down and call traveling. Knowledgeable coaches knew without being told that they had just dodged a bullet.

Re: Regarding the 'swing elbows' analogy,
 

Oh my!

Knowledgeable evaluators would be shooting bullets at you for that one!

How about the <b>other</b> knowledgeable coach on the opposite bench in this situation? The one that <b>knows</b> that you just made the wrong call? The one that <b>knows</b> that he just got screwed out of the two foul shots that he should have had coming if you hadda made the right call? What could you possibly say to him? Helping one coach while you're screwing the other isn't really the way that the game is supposed to be called, imho! Using judgement is whether or not you're going to make a call- not making up your own rules.

Have you got any other rules that you like to make up, in lieu of using the ones already in the rulebook?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 18th, 2003 at 06:11 AM]

Re: Actually, a nice way to handle the leaving the lane
 

Only if you're in the NBA. That's not justice, dude. That's just a screw-up.

The other knowleadgeable coach
 

would expect I would exercise the same good game management judgment were it his moron involved.

"How about the other knowledgeable coach on the opposite bench in this situation? The one that knows that you just made the wrong call? The one that knows that he just got screwed out of the two foul shots that he should have had coming if you hadda made the right call?"

Re: The other knowleadgeable coach
 

Do you really believe that calling a player for travelling because they swung their elbows is good game management? If they took a punch at someone,what would you call then? A backcourt violation?

Sorry to disagree with you,but imo what you're doing is terrible game management.

I'd toss 'im.
 

Life is complicated. Basketball is complicated, too - perhaps somewhat unnecessarily so because the rules are not well written.

Of course that's easy for me to say. The weight of what is is a hell of a burden. To fix it, or scrap it and start over? That is the 'to be or not be' of engineering - whether of bridges, software, or rule-based systems.

That being said, some rules are excellent, some are mediocre - and judicious application can be useful.

"If they took a punch at someone,what would you call then? A backcourt violation?"

Nicely rhetorical. Of course not. I'd toss 'im. It isn't the rule governing fighting, or its application, that's at issue.

In some game, somewhere, some guy is right on the edge. Were the elbows exactly traveling faster than the waist? Is the action truly a reflection of 'criminal' emotion, or is he blowing off steam? You might warn him. Or you might - well, you might have, since because it was such a bad rule its no longer an issue, the penalty is changed - call him for traveling and smile when he protests and the coach tells him to be quiet.

Professional driver, closed course.

<b>You</b> might have called him for travelling. Very,very few other officials would have done the same thing,imo. The only officials that I have met that would do such a thing, fortunately, did not stay with our avocation very long. They certainly never progressed to officiate any meaningful games either.

Ooo. ***** slapped!
 

:)

Re: Ooo. ***** slapped!
 

Jeff,I'm just giving you my opinion. Feel free to reject it. I get the feeling that you already have anyway. No big deal.

Re: Actually, a nice way to handle the leaving the lane
 

Why not just tell him to get his @ss back on the court?

Dan . . .
 

That works, too, on occasion.