The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 10:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Grail

He also noted that a player leaving the bench area to get a drink of water in the hallway, was equally interpreted as leaving the area and should be penalized the same way.
What case book play did he cite for that? Was he drinking something himself? He didn't happen to be a former Big-10 assignor who makes up his own interps did he?

Z
Rule 10-4-1g would seem to apply.

I agree that how stringently it's enforced is a matter of interpretation, and if you / your association / your state chhooses not to enforce it strictly for the situations mentioned, that's your perogative.

Likewise, if Illinois chooses to strictly enforce it, that's their perogative.

Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 10:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins

Right. But that's on the "use a screen, go OOB, come back in, get the pass" play. That's because "leving the court" is not for an authorized reason in this play.

If it's "saving the ball" that's still (I think) allowed -- here, this is an "authorized reason" to leave the court. I do know the rules book still has the AR in it that discusses this.

I agree with you that going OOB to avoid a screen (as in the AR) is different from leaping to save the ball and *unintentionally* ending up OOB. And I believe the intent of the change is simply to reduce the penalty from a T to a violation so it gets called every now & then. But the rule no longer says anything about "authorized reason", it now says "under his/her own volition", which to me means any deliberate act - including *intentionally* leaping OOB, as does happen.
7-1.a AR1 is still in the book -- and it uses the word "voluntarily" (akin to "volition"), not "authorized reason":

Until they take it out (and they might), I'll enforce it that way. None of the discussion has focused on a play like this -- it has all focused on the "screen" play.

A.R. 1. A1 blocks a pass near the end line. The ball falls to the floor in bounds but A1, who is off balance, falls outside the end line. A1 returns, secures control of the
ball, and dribbles. RULING: Legal. A1 has not left the playing court voluntarily and was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 10:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins

Right. But that's on the "use a screen, go OOB, come back in, get the pass" play. That's because "leving the court" is not for an authorized reason in this play.

If it's "saving the ball" that's still (I think) allowed -- here, this is an "authorized reason" to leave the court. I do know the rules book still has the AR in it that discusses this.

I agree with you that going OOB to avoid a screen (as in the AR) is different from leaping to save the ball and *unintentionally* ending up OOB. And I believe the intent of the change is simply to reduce the penalty from a T to a violation so it gets called every now & then. But the rule no longer says anything about "authorized reason", it now says "under his/her own volition", which to me means any deliberate act - including *intentionally* leaping OOB, as does happen.
7-1.a AR1 is still in the book -- and it uses the word "voluntarily" (akin to "volition"), not "authorized reason":

Until they take it out (and they might), I'll enforce it that way. None of the discussion has focused on a play like this -- it has all focused on the "screen" play.

A.R. 1. A1 blocks a pass near the end line. The ball falls to the floor in bounds but A1, who is off balance, falls outside the end line. A1 returns, secures control of the
ball, and dribbles. RULING: Legal. A1 has not left the playing court voluntarily and was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court.
Bob, this is not the play I have in mind.

Let's alter the AR this way: A1 does not *fall* OOB, A1 clearly *jumps* OOB to save the ball. Let's make it even more obvious by having A1 jump *over* the table & land in the 3rd row before (somehow) coming back in & being the first to touch.

This, to me, is a voluntary act.

BTW, I do agree that all the discusson has been focussed on going OOB on a screeen but it is clearly not the only play where this applies. Another play is when a player stays OOB after a throw-in or wanders OOB to an advantageous position after throwing the ball in. Obviously he would need to be the first to touch after coming in but I believe this play is illegal even under the new rule.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 11:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
[BBob, this is not the play I have in mind.

Let's alter the AR this way: A1 does not *fall* OOB, A1 clearly *jumps* OOB to save the ball. Let's make it even more obvious by having A1 jump *over* the table & land in the 3rd row before (somehow) coming back in & being the first to touch.

This, to me, is a voluntary act.

BTW, I do agree that all the discusson has been focussed on going OOB on a screeen but it is clearly not the only play where this applies. Another play is when a player stays OOB after a throw-in or wanders OOB to an advantageous position after throwing the ball in. Obviously he would need to be the first to touch after coming in but I believe this play is illegal even under the new rule. [/B]
Then you're talking about the rest of the AR "This situation is similar to one in which A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum carries A1 off the playing court. The try is unsuccessful, and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control of the ball."

Last year, the rules allowed "saving a ball" but had "going OOB to take advantage of a screen" as a T. (Nearly) everyone thought the penalty for the second act was too severe, so they made it a violation. They didnt' make the change because anyone thought the first play was "too lenient."
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 11:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
Originally posted by Grail
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
From a practical standpoint, my own personal opinion is that you'll see about as many "T"s called for this as were called for throwing a missed elbow when that action was still a "T". Iow, very few "T"s called with quite a lot more whispered "don't damn well do that"s being used.
Agreed. But in reality, I think that's how the NFHS would want it called anyway.

Game situation. Game is going along fine and no problems. Player on end of bench gets up and wanders down to get a drink.

Option 1: "Hey coach, can you help me out and keep your players in the bench area? Thanks."

Option 2: "Tweet, technical foul. Hey coach, that's an indirect on you."

Which one do you think will get you more playoff games?

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 11:00 AM]
In answer to which will get more playoff games, Option 2, at least in the state of Illinois. When the person in charge of Boys Basketball for the state stands in front of a room with 100 officials and 20 or so coaches and says "if you expect to work playoff games, you will follow our lead and enforce the rules as we present them", I'd say in Illinois that we should enforce the rules.

Do I necessarily agree that it's the best option? Not really, but will I do as I'm told by those in charge, absolutely.

It is not our place as officials to decide which rules to enforce. If those in charge in your area don't want you to call a rule, follow their lead. If nobody gives a directive, I'd suggest you follow the book.
Easy to say Grail. When it comes right down to it, how many of those 100 officials are going to call a "T" in the middle of that nicely flowing game with absolutely no warning? Honestly. How many?

Z
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 11:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
[BBob, this is not the play I have in mind.

Let's alter the AR this way: A1 does not *fall* OOB, A1 clearly *jumps* OOB to save the ball. Let's make it even more obvious by having A1 jump *over* the table & land in the 3rd row before (somehow) coming back in & being the first to touch.

This, to me, is a voluntary act.

BTW, I do agree that all the discusson has been focussed on going OOB on a screeen but it is clearly not the only play where this applies. Another play is when a player stays OOB after a throw-in or wanders OOB to an advantageous position after throwing the ball in. Obviously he would need to be the first to touch after coming in but I believe this play is illegal even under the new rule.
Then you're talking about the rest of the AR "This situation is similar to one in which A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum carries A1 off the playing court. The try is unsuccessful, and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control of the ball."
[/b]

Sigh...no, I'm not, because again in this AR the shooter goes OOB inadvertently. The rules speak to a player generally going OOB as an intended or unintended act and the ARs give examples: falls OOB when off balance, momentum carries OOB after a shot, purposely running OOB to avoid a screen. In the play I am talking about the player purposely jumps OOB period. He does so for a reason not covered by the ARs but he does do it on purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 11:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Grail
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
From a practical standpoint, my own personal opinion is that you'll see about as many "T"s called for this as were called for throwing a missed elbow when that action was still a "T". Iow, very few "T"s called with quite a lot more whispered "don't damn well do that"s being used.
Agreed. But in reality, I think that's how the NFHS would want it called anyway.

Game situation. Game is going along fine and no problems. Player on end of bench gets up and wanders down to get a drink.

Option 1: "Hey coach, can you help me out and keep your players in the bench area? Thanks."

Option 2: "Tweet, technical foul. Hey coach, that's an indirect on you."

Which one do you think will get you more playoff games?

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 11:00 AM]
In answer to which will get more playoff games, Option 2, at least in the state of Illinois. When the person in charge of Boys Basketball for the state stands in front of a room with 100 officials and 20 or so coaches and says "if you expect to work playoff games, you will follow our lead and enforce the rules as we present them", I'd say in Illinois that we should enforce the rules.

Do I necessarily agree that it's the best option? Not really, but will I do as I'm told by those in charge, absolutely.

It is not our place as officials to decide which rules to enforce. If those in charge in your area don't want you to call a rule, follow their lead. If nobody gives a directive, I'd suggest you follow the book.
Easy to say Grail. When it comes right down to it, how many of those 100 officials are going to call a "T" in the middle of that nicely flowing game with absolutely no warning? Honestly. How many?

Z
Only the ones who'll work playoffs apparently, if you work in Illinois.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 12:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Grail
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
From a practical standpoint, my own personal opinion is that you'll see about as many "T"s called for this as were called for throwing a missed elbow when that action was still a "T". Iow, very few "T"s called with quite a lot more whispered "don't damn well do that"s being used.
Agreed. But in reality, I think that's how the NFHS would want it called anyway.

Game situation. Game is going along fine and no problems. Player on end of bench gets up and wanders down to get a drink.

Option 1: "Hey coach, can you help me out and keep your players in the bench area? Thanks."

Option 2: "Tweet, technical foul. Hey coach, that's an indirect on you."

Which one do you think will get you more playoff games?

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 11:00 AM]
In answer to which will get more playoff games, Option 2, at least in the state of Illinois. When the person in charge of Boys Basketball for the state stands in front of a room with 100 officials and 20 or so coaches and says "if you expect to work playoff games, you will follow our lead and enforce the rules as we present them", I'd say in Illinois that we should enforce the rules.

Do I necessarily agree that it's the best option? Not really, but will I do as I'm told by those in charge, absolutely.

It is not our place as officials to decide which rules to enforce. If those in charge in your area don't want you to call a rule, follow their lead. If nobody gives a directive, I'd suggest you follow the book.
Easy to say Grail. When it comes right down to it, how many of those 100 officials are going to call a "T" in the middle of that nicely flowing game with absolutely no warning? Honestly. How many?

Z
Only the ones who'll work playoffs apparently, if you work in Illinois.
That may very well be true. Well, true assuming there are observers in every gym every game noting who is *not* disrupting nicely flowing games by not calling this. Barring an army of observers, I don't see how anybody will ever know about an unexpected T that wasn't called.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 12:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Grail
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
From a practical standpoint, my own personal opinion is that you'll see about as many "T"s called for this as were called for throwing a missed elbow when that action was still a "T". Iow, very few "T"s called with quite a lot more whispered "don't damn well do that"s being used.
Agreed. But in reality, I think that's how the NFHS would want it called anyway.

Game situation. Game is going along fine and no problems. Player on end of bench gets up and wanders down to get a drink.

Option 1: "Hey coach, can you help me out and keep your players in the bench area? Thanks."

Option 2: "Tweet, technical foul. Hey coach, that's an indirect on you."

Which one do you think will get you more playoff games?

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 11:00 AM]
In answer to which will get more playoff games, Option 2, at least in the state of Illinois. When the person in charge of Boys Basketball for the state stands in front of a room with 100 officials and 20 or so coaches and says "if you expect to work playoff games, you will follow our lead and enforce the rules as we present them", I'd say in Illinois that we should enforce the rules.

Do I necessarily agree that it's the best option? Not really, but will I do as I'm told by those in charge, absolutely.

It is not our place as officials to decide which rules to enforce. If those in charge in your area don't want you to call a rule, follow their lead. If nobody gives a directive, I'd suggest you follow the book.
Easy to say Grail. When it comes right down to it, how many of those 100 officials are going to call a "T" in the middle of that nicely flowing game with absolutely no warning? Honestly. How many?

Z
Only the ones who'll work playoffs apparently, if you work in Illinois.
That may very well be true. Well, true assuming there are observers in every gym every game noting who is *not* disrupting nicely flowing games by not calling this. Barring an army of observers, I don't see how anybody will ever know about an unexpected T that wasn't called.
So when A6 walks off the bench and wanders into the hallway for a drink or into the stands to go sit with his gf don't you think that Coach B will notice? And expect a T? And call the assignors office if he doesn't get one?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 12:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
[BBob, this is not the play I have in mind.

Let's alter the AR this way: A1 does not *fall* OOB, A1 clearly *jumps* OOB to save the ball. Let's make it even more obvious by having A1 jump *over* the table & land in the 3rd row before (somehow) coming back in & being the first to touch.

This, to me, is a voluntary act.

BTW, I do agree that all the discusson has been focussed on going OOB on a screeen but it is clearly not the only play where this applies. Another play is when a player stays OOB after a throw-in or wanders OOB to an advantageous position after throwing the ball in. Obviously he would need to be the first to touch after coming in but I believe this play is illegal even under the new rule.
Then you're talking about the rest of the AR "This situation is similar to one in which A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum carries A1 off the playing court. The try is unsuccessful, and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control of the ball."


Sigh...no, I'm not, because again in this AR the shooter goes OOB inadvertently. The rules speak to a player generally going OOB as an intended or unintended act and the ARs give examples: falls OOB when off balance, momentum carries OOB after a shot, purposely running OOB to avoid a screen. In the play I am talking about the player purposely jumps OOB period. He does so for a reason not covered by the ARs but he does do it on purpose.
[/B]
Players are authorized to play basketball. Wherever the ball may be, the players are authorized to go. If the ball is heading OOB, all players are authorized to attempt to save it. The player's intent is NOT to go OOB but to save the ball. The act of going OOB is secondary to the play...even if the action which carried him/her OOB is purposeful.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 12:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 768
i think this rule is really just for:
1)THE PLAYERS THAT RUN OUT OF BOUNDS TO GET AROUND A SCREENS, LIKE ON IN-BOUNDS PLAYS TO LOSE THE DEFENSE, WHICH IS INTENTIONAL!
2)THE PLAYERS THAT RUN OUT OF BOUNDS TO GO AROUND A PLAYER TAKING A CHARGE ON PURPOSE!
all these other things are accidental and should be ignored, maybe they were on purpose, but were part of a play that caused it!!!!
__________________
DETERMINATION ALL BUT ERASES THE THIN LINE BETWEEN THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE POSSIBLE!
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
[BBob, this is not the play I have in mind.

Let's alter the AR this way: A1 does not *fall* OOB, A1 clearly *jumps* OOB to save the ball. Let's make it even more obvious by having A1 jump *over* the table & land in the 3rd row before (somehow) coming back in & being the first to touch.

This, to me, is a voluntary act.

BTW, I do agree that all the discusson has been focussed on going OOB on a screeen but it is clearly not the only play where this applies. Another play is when a player stays OOB after a throw-in or wanders OOB to an advantageous position after throwing the ball in. Obviously he would need to be the first to touch after coming in but I believe this play is illegal even under the new rule.
Then you're talking about the rest of the AR "This situation is similar to one in which A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum carries A1 off the playing court. The try is unsuccessful, and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control of the ball."


Sigh...no, I'm not, because again in this AR the shooter goes OOB inadvertently. The rules speak to a player generally going OOB as an intended or unintended act and the ARs give examples: falls OOB when off balance, momentum carries OOB after a shot, purposely running OOB to avoid a screen. In the play I am talking about the player purposely jumps OOB period. He does so for a reason not covered by the ARs but he does do it on purpose.
Players are authorized to play basketball. Wherever the ball may be, the players are authorized to go.
[/b]
Even during a throw-in?
Quote:

If the ball is heading OOB, all players are authorized to attempt to save it. The player's intent is NOT to go OOB but to save the ball. The act of going OOB is secondary to the play...even if the action which carried him/her OOB is purposeful.
Despite the specific wording of the ncaa rules? If they want us to use the player's INTENT to judge the play why did they use "under his/her own volition" in the new wording?
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 01:02pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Wink Do not give me a chance.

I very good officials told me a while ago, "if you do not like a rule, enforce it." I think the rule is silly, but that is the rule. Now, I would do everything I could to not call it and have a quick conversation with the player or the coach. But I would call it if it was a constant issue or situation. The coaches should teach their kids to not do that so I or any other official do not have to think about it.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 04:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Players are authorized to play basketball. Wherever the ball may be, the players are authorized to go.

Even during a throw-in?
[/B]
Yes. For at least one of them and up to 5 of them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

If the ball is heading OOB, all players are authorized to attempt to save it. The player's intent is NOT to go OOB but to save the ball. The act of going OOB is secondary to the play...even if the action which carried him/her OOB is purposeful.
Despite the specific wording of the ncaa rules? If they want us to use the player's INTENT to judge the play why did they use "under his/her own volition" in the new wording?
Unless a player is pushed OOB, all the actions that may carry them OOB are of their on volition at some point.

The difference are clear in my mind (some might say clear as the Mississippi River).

The difference is that one category is an attempt to gain an advantage by being OOB while the in the other being OOB is an after effect.

Diving for a loose ball or momentem after a shot are inbounds plays on a live ball that may or may not result in the player being OOB. There is no advantage gained by ending up OOB. Running OOB around a screen is using OOB to gain the advantage.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 22, 2004, 05:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Talking Not in Illinois

Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Grail
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
From a practical standpoint, my own personal opinion is that you'll see about as many "T"s called for this as were called for throwing a missed elbow when that action was still a "T". Iow, very few "T"s called with quite a lot more whispered "don't damn well do that"s being used.
Agreed. But in reality, I think that's how the NFHS would want it called anyway.

Game situation. Game is going along fine and no problems. Player on end of bench gets up and wanders down to get a drink.

Option 1: "Hey coach, can you help me out and keep your players in the bench area? Thanks."

Option 2: "Tweet, technical foul. Hey coach, that's an indirect on you."

Which one do you think will get you more playoff games?

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 11:00 AM]
In answer to which will get more playoff games, Option 2, at least in the state of Illinois. When the person in charge of Boys Basketball for the state stands in front of a room with 100 officials and 20 or so coaches and says "if you expect to work playoff games, you will follow our lead and enforce the rules as we present them", I'd say in Illinois that we should enforce the rules.

Do I necessarily agree that it's the best option? Not really, but will I do as I'm told by those in charge, absolutely.

It is not our place as officials to decide which rules to enforce. If those in charge in your area don't want you to call a rule, follow their lead. If nobody gives a directive, I'd suggest you follow the book.
Easy to say Grail. When it comes right down to it, how many of those 100 officials are going to call a "T" in the middle of that nicely flowing game with absolutely no warning? Honestly. How many?

Z
Only the ones who'll work playoffs apparently, if you work in Illinois.
In Illinois post season assignments go more off of last seasons rating than this years since they pull the list in early December. They won't know whether you are calling it or not.

You should interpret the rule as for its purpose. If a player is gaining an unfair advantage by going out of bounds than you can T him up, but like most rules you have to interpret the situation. If you pop a kid the first time he steps out of bounds running aroung a screen you might be trying to find places to work next year.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1