I need a little clarification here guys, the dribbler, when forced out of the field of play loses the dribble through incidental contact, and then re-establishes themselves in-bounds and regains the ball, should be allowed to continue play without penalty, is this correct? I had a coach jump on me that a technical should have been called when one of his players, forced the dibbler to the baseline, tipped the ball away from the dribbler who went out of bounds momentarily, came back in and established position on the court, and picked up the dribble again to continue up court. I did not T-up the player thinking they had been forced from the field of play, allowing for the fact that the player did not foul the defender getting back to the ball, but the coach did not let up until the the next dead ball, where I explained my ruling to him and his assistant. Let me now what you all think. Thank you

You are correct and that coach is an idiot. Big surprise there, huh?

Simple explanation to the coach: The technical only applies if they VOLUNTARILY or INTENTIONALLY go out of bounds to gain an advantage. Any "forced" out isn't "T-able".

Intended Emotion: Innocent Curious Querying.

Content: Exkalybr, I'm wondering how a defender "forces" the dribbler out of bound. If it means the defender came closer and closer to the dribbler, the dribbler could just hold his ground and take a foul. If the defender actually made contact such that the dribbler was forced out, that's a foul. If it was a legal screen, then the dribbler wasnt "forced" ooob at all, and you should have called a T.

Please explain further.

Rainmaker,

I too had trouble deciphering some of the grammar and verbage of the post and the apparent throwback to the old NBA "force out" terminology. However, after reading the post a couple times and making an assumption or two (uh-oh), it sounds to me as if incidental contact occurred and the dribbler left the floor briefly but not in an intentional or voluntary manner. Thus no T. Ouch, headache.

Z

Yea, that was my first assumption. But, I just can't think of any contact that would "force" a player oob and also be "incidental". In fact, when the force-out rule was taken out, wasn't it so that there would always be a foul called in these situations?

Or was that force out rule removed because of a nine-page thread about whether or not a force-out could occur if a defender's foot was touching the out-of-bounds line? ;)

Z

In fact, when the force-out rule was taken out, wasn't it so that there would always be a foul called in these situations? [/B][/QUOTE]The old NBA force-out rule only related to a player with the ball- not players without the ball. And it was taken out for that reason- physical contact making someone with the ball go OOB.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 19th, 2004 at 01:04 PM]

I was watching a Varsity boys tournament this holiday weekend. I noticed alot of moving screens going on under the basket. Team A runs a play, one of the players of team A gets caught on a screen and runs directly out of bounds under the backboard. He then returns to the court behind the 3pt line in the cornor of the court, receives the ball and drains a 3 pointer. The player of team A ran out of bounds right next to the lead official. No call. They ran this play several times with the player running out of bounds then receiving the ball for the 3pt shot. Still no call. The coach of team B was going nuts. The 3 man team ignored the coach and the violation.

After the game I was able to visit with the officials and asked them about the no call. They responed with, He did not go out of bounds far enough to inpact the play.

I was wondering as I start my varsity season this friday night, does the rules state the limit a player can run out of bounds and still not be considered a violation? I thought the rule stated you must stay inbounds and can not run out of bounds to avoid a 3 second call or to avoid a screen. Please advise, I do not want to get caught with my whistle in my throat. The officals I talked to have been doing varsity basketball for years. I thougt I could learn something from them, but now I am just confused

Clay, your situation sounds like a T to me
 

The whole idea here is that the offensive player should not have gained an advantage by going out of bounds. If they are goind around a legitimate defensive player and running out of bounds, coming out on the other side of the lane to get a free 3 point attempt, that is exactly what the rule is meant to prevent. In the case as you described, that should have been a Technical foul, not a violation.

The proper call is a "T" because the offensive team is certainly gaining an illegal advantage on this type of play.However, the problem that you could run into here is good ol' association politics. The best thing that you can do is take this one to your local assignor or trainer/evaluator and find out how they want this call made. If they want you to ignore this type of call, as the varsity officials in the game seemed to allude to, well, the best thing to probably do then is to call it the way that they want you too- no matter whether you happen to feel it's right or wrong.

The rule of thumb is "call the obvious." If you can barely tell that a player was out of bounds (not that is something I am really looking that hard for in the first place), then I really do not think it makes a lot of sense to call a T. In my mind and judgment, you have to go further out of bounds than just a toe on the line. You have to really make an effort to go around a screen or off the court to gain an advantage in my thinking.

I do not see anyone in my area having a problem with my logic. I would if I just called a T and it was barely noticed or obvious to everyone in the gym what the kid did.

Peace

Isn't a T a bit too much?
 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but does anyone else agree with me that a T is a pretty severe penalty for what might be a minor infraction? I would think that officials might be more inclined to make this call if the penalty was a violation rather than a T.

I sort of view this situation similar to the "swinging the elbows" situation from a couple of years back. When the penalty was a T no one called it, when the rule changed to allow for a violation to be called when a player swings the elbows (without contact) officals were more comfortable making this call.

Your thoughts?

You just did. Don't be like them. Read the Rules Book and assess the proper penalties.