Running Out of bounds

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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

[/b]

Whatinthehell are you talking about? Since when can a defensive player go OOB to be where the ball is on a throw-in? Or even a second offensive player on a spot throw-in?

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

What?

The rule says exactly nothing about an advantage.

It merely says if you go OOB on your own volition it's a violation.

Or a T is you do so to deceive...whatever *that* means...

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
What?

The rule says exactly nothing about an advantage.

It merely says if you go OOB on your own volition it's a violation.

Or a T is you do so to deceive...whatever *that* means...

Please describe a play that you'd rule as legal (not a T by rule) last year and a violation this year.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Please describe a play that you'd rule as legal (not a T by rule) last year and a violation this year.

I already said I believe the intent of the rule rewording and changes is to simply lower the penalty, so the answer is there is none.

However, if I happen to lose my magic decoder ring I would be very, very confused about what constitutes a violation now under the new wording simply because there are legitimate *basketball* plays where a player goes OOB on his own volition. Like A1 jumping over the table to save the ball from going OOB.

[Camron Rust]

I agree that the intent of the change was to only change the penalty.

As I've tried to state, the difference between an infraction and no infraction is the reason they went OOB.

The only action that takes them OOB that is not, to any degree, of their on "volition" is being pushed. All other actions are, at least in part, volitional.

I think the difference it whether they're trying to play the ball and going OOB is a result or whether the act of going OOB is an attempt to gain an advantage upon returning.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Whatinthehell are you talking about? Since when can a defensive player go OOB to be where the ball is on a throw-in? Or even a second offensive player on a spot throw-in?
[/B]

I never said anything about defense or offense nor specifically a spot throw-in. The context was "players" and "throw-in". Of the 10 players on the floor, at least one of them is allowed OOB on the throwin (the thrower) and, if it is not a designated spot throwin, 5 players are allowed OOB (the entire team of the thrower).