Going OOB

[Mark Dexter]

At a game Tuesday night, A1 supposedly stepped OOB under the basket to go around a defender and come back in (if he did, I didn't see it, but let's assume A1 did illegally go OOB.)

B's coach starts screaming "He went OOB, that's a violation!!"

I always thought this was a technical foul (10-3-4), but talking to the R at halftime, he also said it was a violation. I don't see anything in rule 9 regarding OOB other than the ball.

Who was right? Did I have a brain fart, or did the coach and ref 'agree' on the 'wrong' call?

[rpwall]

It is a Technical Foul for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. Not a call you see made often. Talk players out of this one. If they continue abusing your patience, then they deserve the T.

[williebfree]

I am aware that leaving the court for an "unauthorized reason" is a "T". However; is leaving the court as an attempt to avoid physical contact really a Technical foul? I philosophically have a heard time whistling that as a "T"!
I agree with RPWALL.... In the description above, Keep the game going with a "common" violation!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by williebfree
I am aware that leaving the court for an "unauthorized reason" is a "T". However; is leaving the court as an attempt to avoid physical contact really a Technical foul? I philosophically have a heard time whistling that as a "T"!
I agree with RPWALL.... In the description above, Keep the game going with a "common" violation!

If the player is going to get clobbered, and they step out, then no T should be called.

However, if the player goes OOB to go around a screen, then comes back in, catches a pass and gets an easy two - I think that is the point of the T in this situation.

[JLC]

If A1 is driving along baseline, can B1 plant a foot OOB to prevent the drive, or is this considered going OOB to gain an advantage?

[Danvrapp]

Defense can be where ever they want. They're not the ones with the ball...and more importantly--there's no advantage gained by stepping out on the defensive side of the ball.

[Bart Tyson]

rpwall has a good pilosophy. I've never seen this to be a problem. Leave it alone unless it becomes a problem.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
At a game Tuesday night, A1 supposedly stepped OOB under the basket to go around a defender and come back in (if he did, I didn't see it, but let's assume A1 did illegally go OOB.)

B's coach starts screaming "He went OOB, that's a violation!!"

I always thought this was a technical foul (10-3-4), but talking to the R at halftime, he also said it was a violation. I don't see anything in rule 9 regarding OOB other than the ball.

Who was right? Did I have a brain fart, or did the coach and ref 'agree' on the 'wrong' call?

Someone tell me the hell this is a violation??? I have NEVER seen anyone call a T on this situation either. I may talk to the players, but unless it's blatant, flagrant, and on purpose, I'll never T an offensive OR defensive guy for this.

[co2ice]

Often times when there is traffic in the key and one player decides he wants to avoid the congestion he'll move oob and run to the other side of the key. I don't have a problem with that, at least I haven't, should I ? I use to do that myself as player.

[Hawks Coach]

This is one rule I would like to see changed, to make it a violation to step OOB rather than a T. I think the T makes it so extreme that refs generally will allow players to step around screens OOB and pop open for easy 2 with no T. And when you consider the other infractions that a T is issued for, it seems that the punishment here far outweighs the offense. It would be much better to make that a turnover rather than a T, and refs would be more inclined to call it.

[refjef40]

As usual I agree with Hawks coach.A violation for this would be a great remedy.Also is their any way we can clone some more hawks coach type's for my area?

[Bart Tyson]

I always thought the orginal reason for this being a T was for unsportsmanship. A player gets mad and leaves the court.

[Hawks Coach]

The other situation where I could envision use of a T is a clearly unsportsmanlike attempt to "hide" OOB and then reappear for an easy bucket. I once saw a video where a kid ran out one set of gym doors and back in another and scored - it was allowed. That should have been a T.

In the interest of full disclosure, I also thought that the kid that barked like a dog on all 4s to distract the defense should have gotten an unsportsmanlike T. You had to see that play a few years ago. While there is no rule against doing what he did, it just didn't seem to be in the spirit of the game and doesn't belong on the court.

[Todd VandenAkker]

I saw both of those plays, too, Hawks Coach. Thought they were hilarious, but agree that both should have been handled differently. But I can see why the "T" wasn't called on the "dog boy"--probably so shocked the ref, that he didn't know how to react to it, which was of course the point of that "play."

[Richard Ogg]

I've seen the two plays as well. My understanding is that the play where the player went out one gym door and returned in another (purpose=deceive) was the reason the rule was added. With that in mind, I do not call a T if the player is simply trying to get around traffic or goes off from momentum. I interpret the rule primarily as intent to deceive. I have seen it called when a player repeatedly runs the length of the court OOB, but only after an informal warning.

Now for the dog.... As far as I know, creating a distraction is only illegal during a free throw (disconcertion). So that play is legal in my game (and usually funny as well). I put it a notch better but in the same category as yelling to distract a shooter when they're trying to shoot the ball. I'd rather give a T for that kind of poor sportsmanship. (Was it UNC who first used the dog play? Seems like it was in the NCAA tournament years ago.)