As Soon As ...

[BillyMac]

Debate this morning on Greg Austin's A Better Official You Tube live broadcast regarding this casebook play:

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 the defender detained by the double screen. (a) A3 receives a pass as soon as A3 reenters the court. Ruling: In (a) the official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as A3 catches the pass.

9-3-3: A player shall not step out of bounds under the player's own volition and then become the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court or to avoid a violation.

"As soon as".

What if the point guard dribbled the ball several times after A3 had returned to the court before passing the ball to A3?

[BillyMac]

Now this violation would be easy to call:

[bob jenkins]

A3 is still the first (next) person to touch the ball. Violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A3 is still the first (next) person to touch the ball. Violation.

Yeah. I agree.

Some on the live broadcast, many of whom are pretty good with rules, disagreed due to the phrase "as soon as".

Some suggested that the substitution of "first" by "next" in the actual rule language might help with the interpretation of the rule.

A few believed that the pass must be in flight at the moment when A3 returned inbounds for there to be a violation.

[bob jenkins]

Just because play happens where A1 touches the ball "as soon as" s/he returns to the court does NOT mean that there is no violation if A1 touches the ball when "as soon as" does not apply.


A1 could violate by touching the ball "as soon as" s/he returns or up to (nearly) 8 minutes after s/he returns.

We need to get back to teaching some basic logic classes in school.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... up to (nearly) 8 minutes after s/he returns.

Yes, there was some discussion about a "time element".

Noticing some "they"'s instead of "he/she" in IAABO publications this year.

Doesn't sound great but does sound better than "he/she".

Why can't IAABO, or the NFHS, just have some situations about boys games (using he) and some situations about girls games (using she).

IAABO made a big deal about having many new illustrations in this year IAABO Handbook, with different genders, and different ethic hair styles.

Nice change. Took a long time. Does that make IAABO "woke"? If so, I say go for it.

The reinvention of the traditionally plural pronoun may seem sudden, but its second meaning isn’t as modern as you may assume: The word has appeared as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun in English literature for centuries.

The earliest known instance of the singular they can be found in the medieval poem William and the Werewolf from 1375.

They as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun has been employed by some of the greatest writers of the English language for centuries. In 1386, Geoffrey Chaucer used it in The Canterbury Tales. William Shakespeare was a fan of the usage, writing it into several of his plays, including A Comedy of Errors and Hamlet. Two centuries later, Jane Austen used they to describe a single entity in her 1814 novel Mansfield Park.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Debate this morning on Greg Austin's A Better Official You Tube live broadcast regarding this casebook play:

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 the defender detained by the double screen. (a) A3 receives a pass as soon as A3 reenters the court. Ruling: In (a) the official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as A3 catches the pass.

9-3-3: A player shall not step out of bounds under the player's own volition and then become the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court or to avoid a violation.

"As soon as".

What if the point guard dribbled the ball several times after A3 had returned to the court before passing the ball to A3?

Then A3 wasn't the FTT, correct?

[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 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 bwburke94

... zeroth ...

[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.