It is <b>not</b> a rule book.

[/B][/QUOTE]Then why does it say inside on the first page of the casebook (1) <i>"This <b>rules book</b> has been copyrighted by....."</i> and (2) <i>"Republication of all or any portion of this <b>rules book</b>....."</i>?? :confused:

I misread the play. My thinking was she was trapped and picked up her dribble. If she was still dribbliing and went oob and was the first to touch the ball you made the right call. Sorry for my first post it was early in the morning and I was still thinking about my "crotch stomping" incident. See the post "When it rains it pours".

First, I am not aware of any explicit contradictions of the rule book in the case book. There are clearly things in the case book that cannot be obtained from reading the rule book. Essentially, where you may be led one direction by the rules but the case book clarifies what the rule meant, the case book is what you should lean on.

In rules not covered by the case book fully, or cases not covered by the rule book fully, utilize the source that gives you the most complete picture. then color it :)

I believe that the tossing of the ball back inbounds which constitutes the first dribble in 7.1.1 Sit D is being interpreted as becoming an interrupted dribble while the player is momentarily OOB after making the saving toss. Since the ball is inbounds and the dribbler is OOB one could certainly make the case that the ball has momentarily gotten away from the dribbler. Since there is no player control during an interrupted dribble, there is no violation if this player comes back inbounds and touches or picks up the ball. It is however a double-dribble violation if the player picks up the ball and then starts another dribble.
Hope that settles the apparent contradiction for you.

Ok, I agree with this the most. You don't have a violation here if the player was inbounds when she continued her dribble. However, 10-3-3 "Player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason." This is a player tech. I would say avoiding defensive pressure is an unauthorized reason.

Choice: Allow play to continue (i.e. no violation or OOB) or call the T. I'd go with the latter.

I believe this is only a T if it's to avoid three seconds.

Definitely not the only T. There is a casebook play about a player stepping out of bounds to get around a screen. They call it a T.

Nope, this is a T for unauthorized leaving the court.
I have given out a few rare ones over the years but it was usually for a player trying to beat a pick at the base line instead of the sideline.
No coach has ever given my any grief over it, my evaluators on the other hand.......

T for leaving the court.
 

Quite a few years ago a kid boxed out his opponent near the baseline and so to avoid the box out the opponent stepped out of bounds and came inbounds at the inside position and the rebound came right to him. The only way he got the rebound is by going out of bounds to beat the box out. This sitch is an application of a technical foul for intentionally leaving the court and gaining a distinct advantage. You may have to explain the call but it it the right call to make.

Rule needs changing!
 

With all the consequences that go with a T I think they should change this to a violation instead of a technical. A technical for this is overkill.

Stepping OOB has to remain a T. I think it would be too temping for the defense to step OOB intentionally to draw a whistle without any consequence.

I would like to see the earlier thread about this topic. Anyone have a link? My search seems to be out-of-order.

Apply the rule!
 

For as many times as this call is made, seen it twice in 27 years, it seems to me that it is probably just being ignored by officials in general. If we would apply advantage disadvantage principles it may be workable to change the rule. Havn't taken the time to apply it to all situations but right now it appears to be ignored. Anyone else ever call it or seen it called?

charged?
 

The more I think about different situations a rule change is probably not a good idea! Is this charged to the player? the Coach? The team? When I called it we hadn't yet invented any of this?

This would be charged to the player. Fact is, player goes OOB to avoid defense. T. no violation if she goes around them by pushing the ball between defenders and running around them (staying on the court) and continuing her dribble without ever letting the dribble come to an end.

OOB to gain an advantage. T.

I believe going out of bounds, if intentional, is an automatic T. If unintentionally, and both feet come into live ball territory during an interrupted dribble, (which is what that would be) it is a Legal play!

If using a referee to gain an advantage, T.

'02-'03 Case Book aka. Rule Book. lol Rule 7.1.1.b & c

[Edited by thumpferee on Feb 10th, 2004 at 02:39 PM]