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?

FED: Yes
NCAA: No

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Clarity
 

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]

What case book play did he cite for that? Was he drinking something himself?:eek: He didn't happen to be a former Big-10 assignor who makes up his own interps did he? :eek:

Z

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 <i>"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"</i>. 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.

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

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.

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? :p

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 11:00 AM]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

[/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.

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?

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.

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!!!!

[/b]
Even during a throw-in? 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?

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

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

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.

Not 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.

[/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?

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...

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.

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.

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).