The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 13, 2004, 07:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
I've got two scenarios.. please let me know if I'm correct on the 1st and what is the call on the 2nd..

1st.. A1's team has ball.. B1 is screened on the end line. To avoid the screen, B1 steps out of bounds then re-enters the court. Is a technical called on B?

2nd.. A1 has ball and B1 is defending. While driving upcourt, along the sideline, A1 and B1 have incidental contact, the ball is momentarily loose (in-bounds), A1 steps out of bounds, re-enters and re-gains possession of the ball..

What is this call?

I was at one game as a coach where a ref said this was legal but I disagreed.

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 13, 2004, 08:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 915
1. Technical foul as per rule. However, most officials would pass if no advantage gained. In case you described TEE EM

2. Legal. Assuming contact caused him to go out of bounds.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 13, 2004, 11:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,613
Quote:
Originally posted by gordon30307
2. Legal. Assuming contact caused him to go out of bounds.
Whether the contact caused him to go OOB or not has nothing to do with it. If it's an interrupted dribble, it's legal for A1 to come back inbounds and recover the ball.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 12:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
1st.. A1's team has ball.. B1 is screened on the end line. To avoid the screen, B1 steps out of bounds then re-enters the court. Is a technical called on B? NO........B1 WAS FORCED OUT OF BOUNDS BY THE SCREEN.........THINK ADAVTAGE/DISADVANTAGE IN THIS SITUATION.BY SETTING THE SCREEN AND FORCING B1 OUT OF BOUNDS A1 GAINED A HUGE ADVATAGE.NOW ON TOP OF THAT WE ARE GOING TO DOUBLE PENALIZE THE DEFENSE WITH A "T"

2nd.. A1 has ball and B1 is defending. While driving upcourt, along the sideline, A1 and B1 have incidental contact, the ball is momentarily loose (in-bounds), A1 steps out of bounds, re-enters and re-gains possession of the ball..LEGAL....A1 CAN GO OUT OF BOUNDS AND THEN COME BACK IN A GET THE BALL; HOWEVER, IF A1 DRIBBLES THE BALL, AFTER HE COMES BACK INBOUNDS, IT IS NOW A DRIBBLE VIOLATION DUE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THE INCIDENTAL CONTACT OCCURED HE HAD BEEN DRIBBILING THE BALL.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 01:02am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally posted by betweenthelines
1) 1st.. A1's team has ball.. B1 is screened on the end line. To avoid the screen, B1 steps out of bounds then re-enters the court. Is a technical called on B? NO........B1 WAS FORCED OUT OF BOUNDS BY THE SCREEN.........THINK ADAVTAGE/DISADVANTAGE IN THIS SITUATION.BY SETTING THE SCREEN AND FORCING B1 OUT OF BOUNDS A1 GAINED A HUGE ADVATAGE.NOW ON TOP OF THAT WE ARE GOING TO DOUBLE PENALIZE THE DEFENSE WITH A "T"

2nd.. A1 has ball and B1 is defending. While driving upcourt, along the sideline, A1 and B1 have incidental contact, the ball is momentarily loose (in-bounds), A1 steps out of bounds, re-enters and re-gains possession of the ball..LEGAL....A1 CAN GO OUT OF BOUNDS AND THEN COME BACK IN A GET THE BALL; HOWEVER, IF A1 DRIBBLES THE BALL, AFTER HE COMES BACK INBOUNDS, IT IS NOW A DRIBBLE VIOLATION DUE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THE INCIDENTAL CONTACT OCCURED HE HAD BEEN DRIBBILING THE BALL.
1) Think rules- you're couldn't be more wrong on this one. This situation is similar to the ones found in NFHS POE this year- to be exact POE 3A on p70. It's a T in FED rules. Violation in NCAA rules, I think.

2)Completely wrong again. It's an interrupted dribble as per NFHS rule 4-15-5. As long as A1 comes back in and continues his original dribble, it's perfectly legal.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 01:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
JR:
To be exact the POE for NFHS was on the offenive team...The defense was last year and we had that exact situation come up at the rules interp and what I said is exactley how Indiana is calling it...

In 2.) I stand corrected you are right it is an interupted dribble.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 01:32am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally posted by betweenthelines
JR:
To be exact the POE for NFHS was on the offenive team...The defense was last year and we had that exact situation come up at the rules interp and what I said is exactley how Indiana is calling it...

If Indiana ia calling the rule that way, then Indiana is not calling the rule correctly. The POE specifically states that "Players must play the game within the confines of the playing court....The same principle is in place for ALL players". R10-3-1 also says that a player can't leave the court for an unauthorized reason. Going OOB to avoid a screen is an unauthorized reason.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 02:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,765
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by betweenthelines
JR:
To be exact the POE for NFHS was on the offenive team...The defense was last year and we had that exact situation come up at the rules interp and what I said is exactley how Indiana is calling it...

If Indiana ia calling the rule that way, then Indiana is not calling the rule correctly. The POE specifically states that "Players must play the game within the confines of the playing court....The same principle is in place for ALL players". R10-3-1 also says that a player can't leave the court for an unauthorized reason. Going OOB to avoid a screen is an unauthorized reason.
The purpose behind this interpretation is that B was able to get around the screen by going OOB rather than stopping. That illegally recovers some of the disadvantage that the screen naturally caused. In other words, the defender went OOB to lessen the impact of the screen not because of the screen.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 02:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by betweenthelines
JR:
To be exact the POE for NFHS was on the offenive team...The defense was last year and we had that exact situation come up at the rules interp and what I said is exactley how Indiana is calling it...

If Indiana ia calling the rule that way, then Indiana is not calling the rule correctly. The POE specifically states that "Players must play the game within the confines of the playing court....The same principle is in place for ALL players". R10-3-1 also says that a player can't leave the court for an unauthorized reason. Going OOB to avoid a screen is an unauthorized reason.
The purpose behind this interpretation is that B was able to get around the screen by going OOB rather than stopping. That illegally recovers some of the disadvantage that the screen naturally caused. In other words, the defender went OOB to lessen the impact of the screen not because of the screen.
Sheez, everybody's up late tonight! If we were all in the same locale, we could go out and have this discussion over a Diet Coke together!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 02:20am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]
Sheez, everybody's up late tonight! If we were all in the same locale, we could go out and have this discussion over a Diet Coke together! [/B][/QUOTE]Knees are killing me. I just took 14 tylenol and I'm going to bed as soon as they kick in.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 02:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Sheez, everybody's up late tonight! If we were all in the same locale, we could go out and have this discussion over a Diet Coke together! [/B]
Knees are killing me. I just took 14 tylenol and I'm going to bed as soon as they kick in. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gonna "ride the pine" this season?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 14, 2004, 02:36am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Sheez, everybody's up late tonight! If we were all in the same locale, we could go out and have this discussion over a Diet Coke together!
Knees are killing me. I just took 14 tylenol and I'm going to bed as soon as they kick in. [/B]
Gonna "ride the pine" this season? [/B][/QUOTE]Not if I can help it. Everything's pretty good except for my left knee.
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 10:01pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1