Running Out of bounds

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by zebraman

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

[bob jenkins]

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."

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Grail

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by zebraman

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

[jritchie]

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!!!!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Players are authorized to play basketball. Wherever the ball may be, the players are authorized to go.

[/b]
Even during a throw-in?

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?

[JRutledge]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Even during a throw-in?
[/B]

Yes. For at least one of them and up to 5 of them.

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

[flsh224]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.