Since having the "T" called on the girl stepping OB from the lane, the rule now fascinates me. We have a baseline in-bounds play in which the in-bounder hesitates for a 3 count after throwing the ball in before she enters the floor. As you might guess, she is often open for the return pass and shot. Under the rule (delay in re-entering the floor) would this be considered a " delay in re-entering the floor to gain an unfair advantage"? I've never had it called but I certainly don't want it to rear it's ugly head at a bad time.

If you truly work the advantage/disadvantage system the answer is obvious. If you feel the player will gain something by it, call it, if not let it go.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thom on 12-21-1999 08:25 PM
Since having the "T" called on the girl stepping OB from the lane, the rule now fascinates me. We have a baseline in-bounds play in which the in-bounder hesitates for a 3 count after throwing the ball in before she enters the floor. As you might guess, she is often open for the return pass and shot. Under the rule (delay in re-entering the floor) would this be considered a " delay in re-entering the floor to gain an unfair advantage"? I've never had it called but I certainly don't want it to rear it's ugly head at a bad time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under the rules, this is actually an easier technical foul call for me than the exiting the lane one. That is, if it is really obvious to me that she intended to gain an advantage by doing it, and that it was intentional (and not just that she "spaced out"). Of course, you might ask why the defense didn't decide to guard her after she came inbounds - after all, isn't that their choice and shouldn't they suffer the consequences of their own actions?

Gee - I guess it's not so easy a call after all http://www.ereferee.com/ubb/smile.gif

Actually, I have yelled at inbounders who stand OOB after inbounding to get on the court.

(notice I use the term "inbounder" not the official NF term "thrower-in" / every time I hear or read that, I want to "thrower-up)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thom on 12-21-1999 08:25 PM [T]he rule now fascinates me. We have a baseline in-bounds play in which the in-bounder hesitates for a 3 count after throwing the ball in before she enters the floor. [W]ould this be considered a "delay in re-entering the floor to gain an unfair advantage"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Similar to my comment in the other thread:

It is a technical foul (10-3-4) for a player to "leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out-of-bounds." (Nowhere does it mention "unfair advantage.")

I cannot find a definition for "legal" reasons for being out of bounds, but the case book gives two examples of the application of this rule and one is similar to your question.

Case 10-3-4b describes a play where the thrower, after inbounding the ball, moves along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen. The ruling is a technical foul because, "in this case it should be obvious that [the] movement out of bounds along the endline was to take advantage of the screen."

In your case, according to the rule, your player delayed returning to the court after being legally out of bounds (I will go out on a limb and postulate that a player is legally allowed out of bounds for the throw-in), so I can only say it is a technical foul.

Does this mean all officials will call it? I have no idea. When I played, we often went out of bounds, especially when there was a lot of traffic under the basket, during the normal running of our offense - and even on defense.

If it is a technical for an offensive player to step out of bounds to avoid a three second call - is it a technical for a defensive player to step out of bounds to go around a screen and avoid a fouling the screener?

My problem is that without a definition for "legal" reasons for being out of bounds, I am reluctant to expand the definition beyond the two examples in the case book. Perhaps the rule book [as opposed to the case book] should be clearer on this.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

[This message has been edited by Todd (Mike) Mullen (edited December 21, 1999).]

Todd,

It seems to me that you want everything written out for you. This will never happen as there are so many different situations or 'what ifs', that to put them into a book would produce a volume of text so large to drive away new and old officials alike.

After you have mastered what is written in the rules and casebooks, it is your responsibility to develop your own feeling about 'advantage/disadvantage', 'the Tower Principle', etc. This is what distinguishes the good official from the average one.

It will only come with the experiences you have while officiaiting and while watching other more experience officials work ballgames. If you watch college basketball and the officials not the game, then you can see these type of decisions being made on a continuous basis throughout most ballgames.

Have you ever seen a player get hammered on a rebound and lose the ball out of bounds. Yet the official gives the ball to the team which lost it out of bounds. The official passed on the contact, but when the ball went out of bounds he made a 'judgement' that there should have been a foul, so gives the ball back to the team which lost it.

I've used this technique in hight school and after explaining it to a coach he understood what my call was. Not all will but most will realize why you did it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by b_silliman on 12-22-1999 12:55 AM
Have you ever seen a player get hammered on a rebound and lose the ball out of bounds. Yet the official gives the ball to the team which lost it out of bounds. The official passed on the contact, but when the ball went out of bounds he made a 'judgement' that there should have been a foul, so gives the ball back to the team which lost it.

I've used this technique in hight school and after explaining it to a coach he understood what my call was. Not all will but most will realize why you did it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with virtually everything you said in your original post except this part. Every clinic I have ever been to has made it a point not to make this call. If there is enough contact for a foul - call it. If not, then call the correct OOB.

What you are describing is really the same as the former NBA "force out" rule. After realizing their refs were using it as a cop-out, they eliminated the rule.

I don't think I could ever go to a coach and tell him that I decided to give the ball OOB to the "wrong" team just because I either had a brain cramp on calling the foul or decided it was "kinda, sorta a foul, maybe, perhaps, but not really."

I know my language might sound like I'm coming down a little hard on you but that's not my intent. My point is that many of us (I'm sure this includes you) have spent a lot of time working with young officials trying to help them. I think the best way we can help them is, as you say, learn advantage/disadvantage, but I just don't think this is one of those times.

BTW - I see in your profile you are in Las Vegas. I used to live there and was just there for Comdex. I still love that town.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by b_silliman on 12-22-1999 12:55 AM
Todd,

It seems to me that you want everything written out for you. This will never happen as there are so many different situations or 'what ifs', that to put them into a book would produce a volume of text so large to drive away new and old officials alike.

After you have mastered what is written in the rules and casebooks, it is your responsibility to develop your own feeling about 'advantage/disadvantage', 'the Tower Principle', etc. This is what distinguishes the good official from the average one.

It will only come with the experiences you have while officiaiting and while watching other more experience officials work ballgames.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect . . .

First of all - it's "Mike."

Second - you didn't answer my question about the defensive player leaving the court or if you would expand this rule to apply to any other "leaving the court" situations.

Third - Rule Four devotes nearly 15 pages to definitions (BTW, it also spends more than an entire page on backboards alone in Rule One. And have you seen the size of a baseball or softball rulebook?). Why is it unreasonable to suggest the addition of a definition of reasons to be legally out of bounds?

As for your advice on watching other officials - been there, done that (and still do). Because of the extremely helpful and interested veteran officials in the chapter I started with, I was able to improve and advance rather quickly.

However, while I am confident in my decision-making skills and my interpretation and application of the rules, I still seek out conversations with fellow officials in person and on-line to discuss points just like this.

I hope I do not sound defensive, I merely would like an opinion on my original questions, which I will restate:

1 - Would anyone be willing to expand the rule to other situations except those stated in the case book. If so, please give an example.

2 - Since I expect most to fall back on advantage/disadvantage, would you then call a technical if a defensive player went out of bounds to avoid fouling a screener?

Mark, I would appreciate your comments on these items.

Thanks!

[This message has been edited by Todd (Mike) Mullen (edited December 22, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Todd (Mike) Mullen (edited December 22, 1999).]

Well, I'll try, but I'm not sure I can add much to the rule book. IF a player leaves the court other than to play the ball and in doing so gains an advantage that the player would not heve by staying on the court, then it's a violation (T).

So, does the defense gain an advantage by going out of bounds to avoid a screen? It depends. If the player runs around the screen and makes a defensive play that he couldn't have made by hitting the screen and going around inside, possibly. If the player takes himself out of the play by going out of bounds, then no.

Mark,

I agree on your point that we teach new people the proper way to officiate first and then let them learn little things which will help them survive.

This is one item which may help. I in no way indorse wholesale use of this to bail yourself out.

[quote]Originally posted by Todd (Mike) Mullen on 12-22-1999 09:44 AM

I hope I do not sound defensive, I merely would like an opinion on my original questions, which I will restate:

1 - Would anyone be willing to expand the rule to other situations except those stated in the case book. If so, please give an example.

2 - Since I expect most to fall back on advantage/disadvantage, would you then call a technical if a defensive player went out of bounds to avoid fouling a screener?

Mark, I would appreciate your comments on these items.

Thanks!


Dear Mike-Todd http://www.ereferee.com/ubb/smile.gif

1) I really can't think of any other examples where a player gains an advantage by being OOB other than to avoid a screen, avoid a 3 second call and use a screen coming in from OOB after delaying coming in, except maybe a defensive player setting up with one foot OOB to gain better guarding position (which has been beaten to death, I think)

2)This is a really tough call. Let me answer it this way and hope you don't think it's a cop-out. If the incident occurred with the defender being "in the play" near the shooter, and he got around the pick by going OOB and affected the play, I think I'd call it. If it happened "away from the point of attack" (to borrow a phrase my football ref buddies use to determine if they call holding or not), I might let it go with just a warning to that player as we went down the other way. If I saw it again away from the play, I would mention it to the coach. From that point on, it's a T.

Varsity level, however, I have called it a T the first time. So sue me http://www.ereferee.com/ubb/smile.gif

No legal action please http://www.ereferee.com/ubb/wink.gif.

If you felt the T was warranted, so be it.

The only one play that I would most likely pass on the T is the 3 second one, otherwise, to accepot a pass or to avoid a screen, plyer goes OOB, then a T is justified.