Running Out of bounds

[Bizket786]

If A1 runs out of bounds underneath the basket to recieve a pass from A2 that is considered a technical on A1 right?

Also if a player is running after a loose ball and come from out of bounds to get it that is a violation right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bizket786
If A1 runs out of bounds underneath the basket to recieve a pass from A2 that is considered a technical on A1 right?

FED: Yes
NCAA: No

Also if a player is running after a loose ball and come from out of bounds to get it that is a violation right?

No.

Originally posted by Bizket786
If A1 runs out of bounds underneath the basket to recieve a pass from A2 that is considered a technical on A1 right?

Also if a player is running after a loose ball and come from out of bounds to get it that is a violation right?

It depends.

If A2 is out of bounds after a made basket, A1 may step out of bounds and receive the pass and continue the throw-in.

If the ball is inbounds and A1 in running around screens runs out of bounds before coming inbounds and catching the ball it is a T on A1.


In my experience not many players saving a loose ball from out of bounds will be able to turn around and gain control (at least not easily).

On that note, 9-3 states "A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds. NOTE: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds." If the player is not considered to be dribbling (in control of) the ball then I have no problem unless they don't establish in bounds position (at least one foot last tounched inbounds) then they can pick up the ball.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

FED: Yes
NCAA: No

No.

I don't know if we're reading the play the same way but under ncaa if a player goes OOB "under his/her own volition" it is a violation (not a T) if he/she/it is the first to touch the ball after coming back inbounds.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I don't know if we're reading the play the same way but under ncaa if a player goes OOB "under his/her own volition" it is a violation (not a T) if he/she/it is the first to touch the ball after coming back inbounds.

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.

[scyguy]

If the ball is inbounds and A1 in running around screens runs out of bounds before coming inbounds and catching the ball it is a T on A1.


Where is this in the Fed rule book? What is the reasoning behind a technical?

[Grail]

Fed Point of Emphasis. Last night at an IHSA rules interp meeting it was stressed that "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" should be penalized with a T. The presenter (Assistant Executive Director of the IHSA) also said he felt it was unfair, and would likely be changed for next season, but that it should be enforced per the rule book.

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.

My question is, does/will anybody call this? I've never seen it called and can't imagine actually calling it myself.

[David B]

Originally posted by scyguy
If the ball is inbounds and A1 in running around screens runs out of bounds before coming inbounds and catching the ball it is a T on A1.


Where is this in the Fed rule book? What is the reasoning behind a technical?

From what I've read the reasoning is that the players (offensive) are gaining an advantage by going out of bounds, avoiding a screen etc.,

That would be a T. That would be a good rule and I think is being addressed in NCAA and others also.

But most of the time I've seen them go out is when they are bumped out or forced out by the defense. That is allowed as far as I know.

Also they are wanting us to keep players on the bench etc., which is good preventive officiating.

We will cover that as part of our pregame with the coaches, and let them handle that.

Thanks
David



[Edited by David B on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 09:34 AM]

[zebraman]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

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, as it's been cited several times already, this is taken right out of the POE this year. It's POE 3A on p70 of this year's NFHS rule book, and states "The committee is also concerned about bench personnel leaving the bench, sometimes during a live ball. Heading into the hallway to get a drink or sitting up in the stands with friends or family, even for a short period of time, are not authorized reasons unless they are medically related. Coaches must ensure that bench personnel remain on the bench". Btw, one of the FED's concerns with this is the same rationale as having disqualified players remain on the bench. They want constant supervision by the coaches, etc., for insurance and legal reasons. And also, if the IHSA says they want their officials to call it, it just might be a good idea for anyone that wants play-off games from them to maybe consider doing so.

[zebraman]

JR,

I don't have this year's books yet. However, that POE makes it sound as if they are putting the onus on the coaches, not the officials. It sounds to me from that POE as if maybe they want the official to say, "hey coach, can you help me keep the players in the bench area and supply them with water rather than having them go get a drink at the fountain?"

Calling an immediate T (let's remember spirit and intent) with no warning for a player who walks over to get a drink of water might be a bit harsh don't you think?

I bet that if I had a conversation with that IHSA rules interpreter and pinned him down, he'd say, "yeah, asking the coach to help the officials out by keeping the players in the bench area might be better (especially the first time) than calling a sudden T to the unsuspecting player."

Z

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by zebraman

I don't have this year's books yet. However, that POE makes it sound as if they are putting the onus on the coaches, not the officials. It sounds to me from that POE as if maybe they want the official to say, "hey coach, can you help me keep the players in the bench area and supply them with water rather than having them go get a drink at the fountain?"

Calling an immediate T (let's remember spirit and intent) with no warning for a player who walks over to get a drink of water might be a bit harsh don't you think?

I bet that if I had a conversation with that IHSA rules interpreter and pinned him down, he'd say, "yeah, asking the coach to help the officials out by keeping the players in the bench area might be better (especially the first time) than calling a sudden T to the unsuspecting player."

Z, the onus is on the coach to keep his players on the bench. However, if they don't, the onus now shifts on to us to call the "T" if our governing body tells us to. That's what the FED wants, and according to Grail, that's what the IHSA wants also. As for spirit and intent, for once the FED couldn't be more clearer with the spirit and intent that they want on this one by issuing this POE. It's pretty explicit. They think that it's a problem and they want it dealt with.

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.

[zebraman]

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]

[Dan_ref]

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.

[Grail]

Originally posted by zebraman

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.