sideline play

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

1) It's pretty obvious that it did not gain the offensive team an advantage, b/c I just blew the whistle and gave the ball to Team B. As soon as he step on the OOB line, he committed the violation. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not; it doesn't matter if it (would have) gained an advantage or not.

2)If the inbounder stepped onto the bleachers and threw the ball in, would you T him up for gaining an unfair height advantage? Or would you call the violation for leaving the designated spot? It doesn't matter if the extra height is unsportsmanlike b/c as soon as he left the spot, he had already violated.

1) C'mon, Chuck. You ain't Ronnie Rookie. You're not gonna call that violation if A4 just steps on the OOB line. You're gonna call it as soon as you think that A4 is OOB to gain an advantage, and not until then! And it's at that exact same point- recognizing that A4 is OOB to gain an advantage- that you can also call the T, by rule.

2) apples and oranges!

Btw, if you get tired of arguing this, we could always switch sides for a while. You argue for the T, and I'll argue for a violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
I think both of them are valid: violation or T.

It up to the official to choose which one is the best for that game.

The option for the T is the same as when the ball is inbounds and the offense goes OOB around a screen. This only hinges on the ball being live...which it is once the ball is in the throwers hands.


All that said...I'd call the violation. It would be sufficient in most games. If it persisted, I might escalate to the T.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[stewcall]

ok it was my question so I can now answer and the thread is over:
Call the violation. It fits the crime

Stew in Va
CVBOA

[stewcall]

ok it was my question so I can now answer and the thread is over:
Call the violation. It fits the crime

and besides the ball is live not dead- so a technical just doesn't fit here.

Stew in Va
CVBOA

[Adam]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

If the inbounder stepped onto the bleachers and threw the ball in, would you T him up for gaining an unfair height advantage? Or would you call the violation for leaving the designated spot? It doesn't matter if the extra height is unsportsmanlike b/c as soon as he left the spot, he had already violated.

This is the same to me.

Ah, but Chuck, if he simply steps on the bleachers behind him, has he really left the spot?

[Adam]

Originally posted by stewcall

and besides the ball is live not dead- so a technical just doesn't fit here.

Stew, you might want to rethink this. There are at least a hundred scenarios where a T fits during live ball play.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Sounds reasonable to me.

What it sounds like to me is the ex-lax is finally kicking in.

[footlocker]

Jurassic Referee, I am glad you brought this up because when I read the original thread the thought of 10-3-3 entered my mind as well. You're right; it is worth a discussion. You never said which way you would call it, but it begs the question.

It seems to me that we all agree that this is at minimum a violation. Personally, I would go with this. A turnover is a reasonable punishment to me. Two shots and the ball is a little harsh. I have seen, the thrower release the ball, run behind the screen by staying out of bounds and enter the court to receive a pass- in this situation, it's definitely a T- but I only call it if the pass comes back to that player, hence an advantage gained.

[Eric Huechteman]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

I'd go with the violation - it's more specific to this situation.

I'd go with the technical foul because that section was written for this kind of situation.

A player who leaves the court in order to get open is leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

[Eric Huechteman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric Huechteman

I'd go with the technical foul because that section was written for this kind of situation.

A player who leaves the court in order to get open is leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

I just rethought my position. I would also just call a violation for this reason: 9-2-12 specifically deals with this situation. To utilize a source that has no bearing here, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states that a specific statement, when it applies, always trumps a general statement. 9-2 deals specifically with throw-in provisions, whereas 10-3-3 deals only generally with stepping OOB.

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Why not a technical foul as per rule 10-3-3- "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason....". Isn't it a T under that rule as soon as soon as A4 steps OOB? Of course, isn't it also a violation under Rule 9-2-12 as soon as A4 steps OOB also? Which rule has precedent over the other, and why?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

The distinction is clearly indistinct.

However, since the case book gives 3 illustrations of applying 10-3-3 and none of applying 9-2-12, a technical should be assessed, based on the preponderance of evidence.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman
[/B]

I just rethought my position. I would also just call a violation for this reason: 9-2-12 specifically deals with this situation. To utilize a source that has no bearing here, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states that a specific statement, when it applies, always trumps a general statement. 9-2 deals specifically with throw-in provisions, whereas 10-3-3 deals only generally with stepping OOB.
[/B][/QUOTE]Uh no, 10-3-3 deals specifically with players stepping out of bounds. It covers ALL situations, including throw-in situations.

The only thing that you had right was that your source had no bearing at all on this situation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

The distinction is clearly indistinct.

However, since the case book gives 3 illustrations of applying 10-3-3 and none of applying 9-2-12, a technical should be assessed, based on the preponderance of evidence.

Actually, there is a casebook play applying 9-2-12. Casebook play 9.2.9. The (a) section is kinda interesting. It has a spot throw-in where the referee has placed the ball on the floor. Note that two A players go OOB in this one, and the violation is NOT called immediately. You only call the violation if the player without the ball doesn't immediately return in-bounds when his teammate picks up the ball.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Btw, if you get tired of arguing this, we could always switch sides for a while. You argue for the T, and I'll argue for a violation.

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season --- Blammo!!!

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snaqwells

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ah, but Chuck, if he simply steps on the bleachers behind him, has he really left the spot?

Didn't see the smileys....are you serious?