OOB or NO CALL?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by eventnyc
A1 is dribbling along the sideline and sees that defender B1 is guarding the sideline. A1 then continues the dribble past B1 and then goes out of bounds to avoid the contact with B1. A1 then re-enters the court with both feet in bounds and then continues to dribble ! Legal ?

After reading the posts in this thread I have decided to enter into the fray. I do not have my NCAA rules book in front of (Chuck: they are still in the attic), but I do have the new NFHS Rules Book and Casebook that I just received from the MichiganHSAA. So my post will be framed in NFHS rules.

R9-S3 and its accompanying NOTE is the governing rule for the play shown above. R10-S3-A3 does not apply to this play. While A1 did go out-of-bounds to avoid contact with B1, he did not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Unauthorized reason deals with situations where players are trying to gain an advantage by deceit. Such as, stepping off the court in attempt to mislead his/her opponent into thinking that he/she is not in the game and then coming back onto the court at such a time as to gain an advantage over his/her opponent.

In the above posted play A1 is just attempting to driblle around B1 and commits an out-of-bounds violation instead. Lets save R10-S3-A3 for the really important infractions of the rules. My best advice is to do not go looking for trouble. Trouble will find you soon enough. Just let the game come to you and call the obvious. I know that last remark is somewhat of a cliche, but it is still good advice.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

What Dan is saying is that he has a memo written by Dr. Naismith indicating that his position is correct.

Just make sure you get the font right, Dan.

Adam

I, also saw the memo and the font is a beautiful proportional font too.

MTD, Sr.

[Jimgolf]

4-16-5 An interupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler.

These two situations describe accidental loss of the ball during a dribble. The sitch described was not an interrupted dribble, since the ball neither momentarily got away or deflected off the dribbler. By the way, no advantage is given to the offense in the described situation, since as soon as the player goes out of bounds it is a violation, so there is no need to give a technical foul, nor to have a POE.

By inference, the POE must apply to a player that is not dribbling, since there is already a rule covering the situation.

[mick]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Just make sure you get the font right, Dan.

Adam

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I'm anxiously awaiting a rule reference that says "an ID is an ACCIDENTAL loss of the dribble."

BTW, how are you going to prove that this player intentionally allowed the dribble to get away from him because he KNOWS he can be the first player to it when he comes back in?

A1 is dribbling, they push the ball ahead and takes several steps between dribbles, is THAT an interrupted dribble? The ball gets away from the dribbler on EVERY dribble. It leaves the hand hits the floor and returns to the hand, the ball is NEVER under constant control, yet it is considered under player control.

The definition of an interrupted dribble DOES speak of accidental loss of the ball, reguardless if the word accidental does not exist in the wording.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
BTW, how are you going to prove that this player intentionally allowed the dribble to get away from him because he KNOWS he can be the first player to it when he comes back in?

I can't. But I bet that player knows that he'll definitely lose the ball if he steps on the line. So letting it get away gives his team at least a chance for keeping possession.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
4-16-5 An interupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler.

These two situations describe accidental loss of the ball during a dribble.

Disagree completely. Deflecting can be accidental or intentional. I'm sure you've seen an inbounder deflect the ball off a defender who had turned his back. That's intentional.

The ball can also intentionally "get away" from the dribbler. There's no reason to assume that those phrases must describe accidental events.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

By inference, the POE must apply to a player that is not dribbling, since there is already a rule covering the situation.

Unfortunately, "inference" isn't needed to make the call that the NFHS is telling us to make. There is an explicit "reference" in the POE that already states "an offensive player" can't go around a defensive player by running out of bounds. Not "an offensive player without the ball", Jim and MTD Sr., but "an offensive player". "Dribblers" are "offensive players", aren't they? The POE states that it's a T if an "offensive player" runs OOB to go around a defensive player. Pretty plain and explicit language, methinks.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, "inference" isn't needed to make the call that the NFHS is telling us to make. There is an explicit "reference" in the POE that already states "an offensive player" can't go around a defensive player by running out of bounds. Not "an offensive player without the ball", Jim and MTD Sr., but "an offensive player". "Dribblers" are "offensive players", aren't they? The POE states that it's a T if an "offensive player" runs OOB to go around a defensive player. Pretty plain and explicit language, methinks.

It also states the offensive player gains an advantage by running around the defender - and I believe advantage is a key concept in the reworded ncaa rule related to this as well. With that in mind - what advantage is gained if we apply the existing rule for a dribbler stepping OOB?

[Adam]

Dan,
An advantage is gained by avoiding contact that the defensive player properly set up.

Adam (reaching)

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Unauthorized reason deals with situations where players are trying to gain an advantage by deceit. Such as, stepping off the court in attempt to mislead his/her opponent into thinking that he/she is not in the game and then coming back onto the court at such a time as to gain an advantage over his/her opponent.

Mark -- I've avoided discussing things with you, but this one is too egregious to pass up. There's nothing in the case book at all about deceit being the crucial defining point in "unauthorized reasons to leave the court." In fact, two out of three case book situations involve situations similar to the one described above where a player steps out of bounds deliberately to evade a rule. It's not sneaky or underhanded, it's just illegal. I could imagine a ref thinking that the situation described above fits better into 9-3 than 10-3-3, but this sitch certainly IS within the scope of 10-3-3. In fact, it's the very play 10-3-3 was written for.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Dan,
An advantage is gained by avoiding contact that the defensive player properly set up.

Adam (reaching)

Dan was saying he'd still penalize the OOB violation, the lesser of two evils if you will. A1 gets penalized in both cases and B gets the ball.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The new POE in this year's rule book states " Too often players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example is an offensive player getting around a screen OR A DEFENSIVE PLAYER by running out of bounds. That is not legal and gives a tremendous advantage to the offense. Officials must enforce the rule that is already in place. It is a technical foul."

Can't get written any clearer than that!

I think there's something wrong with me... this is twice today I have disagreed with Jurassic... it's going to be a long evening.

The POE mentions specifically unauthorized reasons such as getting around a screen. So do the casebook rules of 10-3. Dribbling OOB is not mentioned in 10-3 or in this new POE.

Dribbling OOB is specifically mentioned in 9-3 Note. I'm in the violation court and no "T."

I can see this happening the way described in the original situation where the dribbler saw the upcoming defender and then stepped out of bounds ... but more likely I can see the same result when the dribbler DOES NOT SEE THE DEFENDER but still steps OOB without forethought. Should I not have the same whistle? Namely: An illegal block is comming... no time and no distance... surprize the defender is in your path... only available path because of your footwork is OOB... no contact, ball one way and dribbler OOB... T? Sorry, turnover.

[Mregor]

Jimgolf,
I was with you up until this statement...

Originally posted by Jimgolf
By the way, no advantage is given to the offense in the described situation, since as soon as the player goes out of bounds it is a violation

I believe it wouldn't be a violation until he stepped back on court and continued the dribble. Just based on the way I learned it; I can't even recall where I got it from but I believe it was a CB play at one time.

Although I haven't read to POE or the new books, I would have a very difficult time T'ing this. Just like the player who I'm telling to get out of the lane and he steps OOB to avoid the violation, I'm calling the violation before the T.

Mregor

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mregor
Jimgolf,
I was with you up until this statement...

I believe it wouldn't be a violation until he stepped back on court and continued the dribble. Just based on the way I learned it; I can't even recall where I got it from but I believe it was a CB play at one time.

Although I haven't read to POE or the new books, I would have a very difficult time T'ing this. Just like the player who I'm telling to get out of the lane and he steps OOB to avoid the violation, I'm calling the violation before the T.

Mregor

Why?

If it's an OOB violation you are saying A1 has player control, so if A1 was holding it and stepped OOB would you wait until A1 got both feet back in bounds? If it's a dribble, it's a violation the instant A1 goes OOB.

Your only other choices are nothing on an interrupted dribble or a T for leaving the court.