OOB or NO CALL?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

The POE mentions specifically unauthorized reasons such as getting around a screen.

The POE also specifically mentions, as I highlighted above, that the offensive player can't go OOB to avoid a defensive player. Isn't that exactly what eventnyc said that the dribbler did in the very first post on this thread? Run OOB to avoid a defender that had the sideline cut off, and then come back in bounds and resume his dribble.? This new POE says that it's a T if you do that. It's also clarifying how the FED wants this type of play called- a T and not a violation. Now, whether very many officials will ACTUALLY call a T under these circumstances is a whole 'nother story.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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.

Juulie:

Why would you want to avoid discussing things with me? You cut me to the quick.

I should state right now that I do not have a Casebook in front of me because I am at the Library while our sixth grader is picking out a book of fiction to read and write a book report for school, therefore I am at a slight disadvantage in my resposne. But I agree that I should have said that leaving the court for deceitful purposes would and should be considered an "unauthorized reason," and that most "unauthorized reasons" are of a deceitful purpose. But I respectfully disagree with you when you state that the play in this thread is the very play for which R10-S3-A3 is written.

Examples of "unauthorized reasons" are: a) stepping off the court to aviod a three second call; b) 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, delaying returning to the court after releasing the ball on a throw-in pass (my favorite variation of this play is for A1 to inbound the ball along the endline of Team A's frontcourt and then A1 runs along the endline while out-of-bounds to the other side of the court, steps inbounds and receives the ball in a position to take an unhindered three-point field goal attempt); or c) stepping of the court to run to the drinking fountain to get a drink. All three of these plays are examples of leaving the court for "unauthorized reasons," but only (c) would not be considered deceitful in nature.

The play being described in this thread will be a bang-bang play. A1 will be around B1 before one can get air in the whistle. Plays (a) and (b) are plays that will unfold at a leasurely pace when compared to the play in this thread. A technical foul will be a very difficult sell, because A1's actions should be considered something done in the "heat of the moment." For the action to be "unauthorized" it is my opinion that A1's actions have to have some premeditation.

But the most important thing to remember if an official has to conduct a rules clinic to explain his call, then it should not have been made; and everybody knows that I am not afraid to make the type of call for which we get paid the big dollars. But I just think that we are reading too much into this play. I do not think that R10-S3-A3 was meant for this play. This might be a good play for someone to email to the Rules Editors of the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's rules committees.

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The POE also specifically mentions, as I highlighted above, that the offensive player can't go OOB to avoid a defensive player.

Ever?? Not even a tiny bit?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Ever?? Not even a tiny bit?

Maybe a little bit. Sometimes.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by blindzebra
A1 is dribbling, they push the ball ahead and takes several steps between dribbles, is THAT an interrupted dribble?

How many steps he takes between dribbles has nothing to do with it. It doesn't take a genius to recognize 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.

All you have done is define what a dribble is.

But I guess if what you say is true, then there's no such thing as player control during a dribble.

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.

Now that makes a lot of sense.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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.

Thank you!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Maybe a little bit. Sometimes.

Progress.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

How many steps he takes between dribbles has nothing to do with it. It doesn't take a genius to recognize an interrupted dribble.

All you have done is define what a dribble is.

But I guess if what you say is true, then there's no such thing as player control during a dribble.

Now that makes a lot of sense.

So if you are dribbling and you dribble it off your foot, you are ALWAYS doing it on purpose?

You spin and the dribble does not come with you, you are ALWAYS doing it on purpose?

There are many cases where the rule book does not spell out EXACTLY the intent of the rule, and to say an interrupted dribble is always a purposeful act is flat out wrong.

Cite where it says an interrupted dribble is a purposeful act. Show where it says deliberately deflecting or purposely losing the ball.

[Edited by blindzebra on Sep 16th, 2004 at 11:19 PM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Examples of "unauthorized reasons" are: a) stepping off the court to aviod a three second call; b) 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, delaying returning to the court after releasing the ball on a throw-in pass (my favorite variation of this play is for A1 to inbound the ball along the endline of Team A's frontcourt and then A1 runs along the endline while out-of-bounds to the other side of the court, steps inbounds and receives the ball in a position to take an unhindered three-point field goal attempt); or c) stepping of the court to run to the drinking fountain to get a drink. All three of these plays are examples of leaving the court for "unauthorized reasons," but only (c) would not be considered deceitful in nature.

I guess it depends on your definition of the word "deceit". I don't consider these plays deceit -- they aren't trying to fool anyone. They are merely breaking the rules without realizing they have done so. Nevertheless, the play described at the beginning of this thread is clearly along the same lines as the player who steps out of bounds to get around a screen. And the Fed wants it called as a T.

I also disagree with your concept that you shouldn't call anything that requires a rules clinic to explain. Are you serious? Aren't you the one that calls three T's for the kid standing on the other kid's back to dunk the ball? Do you seriously think that won't take some explaining?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I guess it depends on your definition of the word "deceit". I don't consider these plays deceit -- they aren't trying to fool anyone. They are merely breaking the rules without realizing they have done so. Nevertheless, the play described at the beginning of this thread is clearly along the same lines as the player who steps out of bounds to get around a screen. And the Fed wants it called as a T.

I also disagree with your concept that you shouldn't call anything that requires a rules clinic to explain. Are you serious? Aren't you the one that calls three T's for the kid standing on the other kid's back to dunk the ball? Do you seriously think that won't take some explaining?

First, lets address the three technical fouls on one play. As I have stated before this play occured during a summer tournament and one has a greater chance of getting struck by lightning in the middle of a thunderstorm than ever seeing this specific play in a real game. The game was a boys' 16U, the team was getting waxed and its coach and two other players on the team had already unsportsmanlike technical fouls. But I digress.

If my above play (c) does not fit the description of deceitful play, then I do not know what deceitful is.

But as I stated before, this is going to be a bang-bang play. A1 wants to avoid contact with B1. Lets assume that A1 is right handed and is dribbling down the court with his right hand and the sideline is to his right. The most natural direction for A1 is to move to avoid contact with B1 is probably to his right. If A1 were drbbling up the court with his right hand and the sideline were to his left, the most natural direction for A1 to move to avoid contact wiht B1 is probably to his right also.

In my officiating career, in any discussion that I have had about such a play "unauthorized" has always been used to describe a calculated move by the offending player to leave the court to gain an advantage as opposed to a spontaneous movement that is the result of play on the court.

It should be noted that the POE in this year's rules book talks about an offensive (it could be a defensive player too) going out-of-bounds to avoid a screen or an offensive player going out-of-bounds to avoid a defensive player.

A1 is dribbling the ball up the court against B1 and does a spin move that takes him out-of-bounds while his hand is not in contact with the ball and when A1 retouches the ball he is now inbounds. Does R9-S3 apply or does R1-S3-A3 apply? This play is a bang-banger. Was A1's intent to go out-of-bounds to avoid B1? I would think not, therefore R9-S3 fits the rules infraction.

A1 does not have the ball and is running down the court; he sees B1 and B2 standing shoulder-to-shoulder perpendicular to the sideline down the court setting a defensive screen along the sideline. A1 has to make a decision. If he goes around the screen to the out-of-bounds side of the screen rather that going to the inbounds side of the screen, he can get to his offensive spot on the court quicker. This is a very good case where R10-S3-A3 would apply.

The more spontaneous the play the more likely R9-S3 will apply and less likely R10-S3-A3 will apply. I guess the best advice I can give one, if asked, is to see the whole play, and more importantly, when an R10-S3-A3 situation occurs it will be very obvious.

MTD, Sr.


P.S., Juulie: Why do I detect that you do not want to discuss plays with me? MTD, Sr.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by blindzebra

So if you are dribbling and you dribble it off your foot, you are ALWAYS doing it on purpose?

You spin and the dribble does not come with you, you are ALWAYS doing it on purpose?

There are many cases where the rule book does not spell out EXACTLY the intent of the rule, and to say an interrupted dribble is always a purposeful act is flat out wrong.

Cite where it says an interrupted dribble is a purposeful act. Show where it says deliberately deflecting or purposely losing the ball.

Dude, that's the fricking point! That's what I've been trying to tell you!

An interrupted dribble is NEITHER intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It's simply a situation where the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. It doesn't matter whether it's intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It doesn't matter how or why it happened. It's simply an ID.

I don't know how to make that any clearer.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Dude, that's the fricking point! That's what I've been trying to tell you!

An interrupted dribble is NEITHER intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It's simply a situation where the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. It doesn't matter whether it's intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It doesn't matter how or why it happened. It's simply an ID.

I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Its clear to me and I am blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Dude, that's the fricking point! That's what I've been trying to tell you!

An interrupted dribble is NEITHER intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It's simply a situation where the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. It doesn't matter whether it's intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It doesn't matter how or why it happened. It's simply an ID.

I don't know how to make that any clearer.

The play in question is NOT an interrupted dribble, and I don't know how to make that any clearer.

If you caused the ball to go past the defender it did NOT get away from you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

An interrupted dribble is NEITHER intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It's simply a situation where the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. It doesn't matter whether it's intentional, purposeful, or accidental.

It doesn't matter how or why it happened. It's simply an ID.

[/B][/QUOTE]
The play in question is NOT an interrupted dribble, and I don't know how to make that any clearer.

If you caused the ball to go past the defender it did NOT get away from you.
[/B][/QUOTE]BZ, it doesn't really matter if you caused the ball to go past the defender or not. If you WERE dribbling but you are NOW physically unable to immediately continue to dribble, even if you wanted to, then the ball HAS gotten away from you. That's simply a physical fact. You've lost player control because you're no longer able to dribble, and it's regarded as an interrupted dribble. Those are the criteria that the FED cited when they first introduced the concept of interrupted dribbles into the rule book about 20 years ago- i.e. the dribble hasn't ended, but the player dribbling lost player control for some/any reason and was physically unable to continue dribbling, even if he wanted to, but he still had the legal right to continue dribbling when he re-gained player control.

It's a moot point anyway in this particular argument, isn't it, according to eventnyc's description of what happened? The main point was what, if anything, should be called on the dribbler for going OOB around the defender.

I'd pull out the pertinent language on interrupted dribbles from one of my 20-year old rulebooks, but unfortunately they're kept in one of my briefcases, and I keep those stored in a bomb-proof vault in a hidden cave somewhere deep in the Sierra Madre mountains. I could tell you exactly where, but then I'd have to kill you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

The more spontaneous the play the more likely R9-S3 will apply and less likely R10-S3-A3 will apply.

P.S., Juulie: Why do I detect that you do not want to discuss plays with me?

[/B][/QUOTE]Are you serious, Mark? Are you really advocating that an official should judge whether a play should be called a violation or a technical foul based on whether the official THOUGHT that the play occurred spontaneously or not? Forget about the rules and call it according to what you think the player's intent was? Do you teach that concept in your training classes too?

PS- I thought Juulie's reply was a little grumpy too. Tsk, tsk, tsk.