location of player

[thedewed]

thanks. I do find when playing that nearly everyone thinks that both you can't be last to touch, go out of bounds, then come back in and be first to touch, and they think both feet need to be both back in to re-establish. Wanted to make sure I wasn't misremembering it all.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

... nearly everyone thinks that both you can't be last to touch, go out of bounds, then come back in and be first to touch, and they think both feet need to be both back in to re-establish ...

Agree, which is why it's one of the most important items on my Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1045823

[Coach Bill]

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose". I've seen guys sprinting the floor wide to get to the corner and inadvertently touch a sideline along the way, but are clearly inbounds ready to shoot in the corner by the time the ball is passed to them. Is this a violation? I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose". I've seen guys sprinting the floor wide to get to the corner and inadvertently touch a sideline along the way, but are clearly inbounds ready to shoot in the corner by the time the ball is passed to them. Is this a violation? I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

I don't equate stepping on the boundary line with leaving the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose". I've seen guys sprinting the floor wide to get to the corner and inadvertently touch a sideline along the way, but are clearly inbounds ready to shoot in the corner by the time the ball is passed to them. Is this a violation? I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

The rule (and the caseplays) doesn't make any reference to "voluntarily", "on purpose", "inadvertently", or "intentionally".

Here's the rule:

9-3-3: A player must not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Here are the caseplays:

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. (9-3-3)

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)

Interpret as you see fit.

I've only seen this called twice in forty years. Once when my partner, as Lead, almost got run over by an offensive player using a double screen near the low post area to get open. The other was an offensive player exiting the lane via the endlne to avoid a three second violation. Can't remember if we called it a three second violation or a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

[justacoach]

Can't remember if we called it a three second violation or a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.[/QUOTE]

In the olden days, was not this action subject to a TF call?

IIRC, changed to a violation, reason given, a lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by justacoach

In the olden days, was not this action subject to a TF call?

IIRC, changed to a violation, reason given, a lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called.

Yes it was a technical foul and was changed to a violation to give more incentive to call it more often.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by justacoach

... violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason ... In the olden days, was not this action subject to a TF call ... changed to a violation, reason given, a lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes it was a technical foul and was changed to a violation to give more incentive to call it more often.

A few years ago I offered a suggestion to the NFHS for a rule change, for the same reason, to change purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds from a technical foul to a violation. They're similar (complementary) infractions. Even offered previous changes (swinging elbows without contact, leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) for the same reason (lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called). My suggestion made its way all the way up the ladder to the NFHS Basketball rules committee final agenda, to be voted down.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose" ... I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The rule (and the caseplays) doesn't make any reference to "voluntarily", "on purpose", "inadvertently", or "intentionally" ... 9-3-3: A player must not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Thanks Coach Bill. Your post gave me the impetus to make some language changes in my Misunderstood Basketball Rules list

If a player's momentum carries the player off the court, that player can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court for an unauthorized reason, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

The intent of the three second rule is to not allow an offensive player in the lane to gain an advantage. There is no three second count between the release of a shot, and the control of an offensive rebound, at which time a new count starts. There is no three second count during a throwin. There is no three second count while the ball is in the backcourt. There is a three second count during an interrupted dribble. There is a three second count while an offensive player has one foot in the lane, and one foot outside of the lane, and the three second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane. It’s a violation for a player to step out of bounds for an unauthorized reason in an attempt to avoid a three second violation. Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the lane area for less than three seconds, dribbles, or moves immediately to try for goal.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The rule (and the caseplays) doesn't make any reference to "voluntarily", "on purpose", "inadvertently", or "intentionally".

Here's the rule:

9-3-3: A player must not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Here are the caseplays:

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. (9-3-3)

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)

Interpret as you see fit.

I've only seen this called twice in forty years. Once when my partner, as Lead, almost got run over by an offensive player using a double screen near the low post area to get open. The other was an offensive player exiting the lane via the endlne to avoid a three second violation. Can't remember if we called it a three second violation or a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

9.3.3 sit B&C use the word intentionally.

My apologies - I was asking about the NCAA rule which uses the words stepping out of bounds "of their own volition". I think i misremembered own volition and voluntarily.

The rule is: "A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation."

But, I never knew what would be considered of their own volition and what wouldn't. I think i always thought of it as "intentionally".

I'm pretty sure Raymond answered the NCAA rule, in my scenario he would not call a violation, which is good to know.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

9.3.3 sit B&C use the word intentionally.

My apologies - I was asking about the NCAA rule which uses the words stepping out of bounds "of their own volition". I think i misremembered own volition and voluntarily.

The rule is: "A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation."

But, I never knew what would be considered of their own volition and what wouldn't. I think i always thought of it as "intentionally".

I'm pretty sure Raymond answered the NCAA rule, in my scenario he would not call a violation, which is good to know.

When some teams run the Grinnell (SP?) offense, the players running on the sidelines try to get as wide as possible -- including OOB if they can. This would be a violation.

If I think a player is just "lost" for a second and, FOR EXAMPLE, has only one foot OOB for only one step, I'd let it go.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

9.3.3 sit B&C use the word intentionally.

My apologies - I was asking about the NCAA rule which uses the words stepping out of bounds "of their own volition". I think i misremembered own volition and voluntarily.

The rule is: "A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation."

But, I never knew what would be considered of their own volition and what wouldn't. I think i always thought of it as "intentionally".

I'm pretty sure Raymond answered the NCAA rule, in my scenario he would not call a violation, which is good to know.

When you go out of bounds and you did so by not being contacted or not making a legitimate play on the ball, usually means "Your own volition." You do not penalize a player if they saved the ball or if they were defending a play or if they ran into a player and happened to go out of bounds. The rules are basically the same in practice other than the NF is an immediate violation and the NCAA has a delay element along with if they get the ball.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rules are basically the same in practice other than the NF is an immediate violation and the NCAA has a delay element along with if they get the ball.

Great point.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

9.3.3 sit B&C use the word intentionally..

Thanks Coach Bill.

How can I expect others to read my posts when I don't carefully read them myself?

Well, at least I was right right about "voluntarily" and "on purpose".

If a player's momentum carries the player off the court, that player can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have intentionally left the court for an unauthorized reason, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.