As Soon As ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Then A3 wasn't the FTT, correct?

If one counts the point guard as "Player Zero", then A3 is the first (or next) player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court after leaving the playing court under the player's own volition.

Purpose and intent of this new rule is two-fold:

1) Prevent any advantage gained by a player voluntarily leaving the playing court.

2) Not stopping the game to penalize a player who voluntarily leaves the playing court without gaining any advantage (as in the old rule).

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If one counts the point guard as "Player Zero", then A3 is the first (or next) player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court after leaving the playing court under the player's own volition.

Purpose and intent of this new rule is two-fold:

1) Prevent any advantage gained by a player voluntarily leaving the playing court.

2) Not stopping the game to penalize a player who voluntarily leaves the playing court without gaining any advantage (as in the old rule).

Player zero? A1 (point guard) passes the ball to A2 a) After he/they return
b) before he/they return. Violation in b, correct?

If yes then, in (a) A1 is player 1 not zero.

So, if I'm understanding the rule correctly, what does time have to do with anything? Or "as soon as"?

I'm assuming the "as soon as" in the CP was simply saying the pass was already released prior to A3's reentry.

What am I missing here?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Player zero? A1 (point guard) passes the ball to A2 a) After he/they ... b) before he/they return. Violation in b, correct? If yes then, in (a) A1 is player 1 not zero. So, if I'm understanding the rule correctly, what does time have to do with anything? Or "as soon as"? I'm assuming the "as soon as" in the CP was simply saying the pass was already released prior to A3's reentry. What am I missing here?

thumpferee: I agree with you that both the new rule language, and the casebook language, could be better.

The new purpose and intent of this rule is one of advantage and disadvantage, which is always subjective in nature.

When an advantage is gained by a player purposely leaving the court and being the first one to touch the ball or leaving the court to avoid a violation, an advantage is gained, and a violation has occurred.

While that point guard is dribbling, how much time can elapse until the screened player gets around the screen, catches up to his opponent, and properly and aggressively guards his opponent, before one decides that A3 has no longer gained any advantage by voluntarily going out of bounds? What if A3 makes a great V-cut to get open long after he came back inbounds and several seconds after the defensive player moved to cover him?

I don't believe that the NFHS allows us to consider such a time element in our interpretation on the court.

I liked the old rule. The NFHS claims that the old rule led to too many game stoppages when no advantage was gained.

... allows the game to continue without stoppage when the player’s actions did not create an advantage.

I disagree. I've been playing, coaching, watching, and officiating basketball since the mid-1960s, and I only observed the old rule called once.

I wish that the NFHS had just left well enough alone.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

[SNIPERBBB]

I just wonder how prevalent it was for people calling violations for players going OOB under the old rule. I mean outside of a particular incident when the rule it was a T for going OOB where a now deceased official called this 17 times in one game I almost never seen it called or had any complaints about it being called since.

And I really want to know if players were intentionally stepping out of bounds to avoid 3-second calls!

[bwburke94]

The wording "first to touch" should be clear, but the main question is whether the zeroth touch counts.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

... zeroth ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

And I really want to know if players were intentionally stepping out of bounds to avoid 3-second calls!

For me, probably a half dozen over forty-plus years.

Extra credit: Out of bounds violation, or three second violation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

I just wonder how prevalent it was for people calling violations for players going OOB under the old rule.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've been playing, coaching, watching, and officiating basketball since the mid-1960s, and I only observed the old rule called once.

Never called it myself, but several years ago I had an offensive player run out of bounds around a screen, and he almost ran me over as the lead official. It surprised me, and I let it go, but vowed to call the violation the next time he did it. After a switch after a foul, my partner was now the lead on the same endline and made the call without me telling him anything about the situation.

I have orally warned a few players, "Hey, don't do that".

Over forty-plus years, I've called a few violations for players who step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a three second violation.

Foul called on a player (not her fifth foul) who's body language showed that she was upset with the official who made the foul call and then ran off the court (not waiting for a substitute) straight into the locker room. After checking with the coach that it was for an unauthorized reason (not a bathroom break, injury, etc.) we charged her with the technical foul. Seen this called only once in forty-plus years.