Leaving the court w/o authorization

[Hartsy]

I have seen a lot of discussion about calling the technical foul for "leaving the court without authorization" when a player runs below the baseline to avoid a screen.

What makes this any more a tech foul than someone jumping over the endline or sideline to save a ball from going out of bounds? In each scenario, the player "left the court without authorization". And don't try to use advantage/disadvantage. The player saving the ball may gain an advantage for his team, just as much as the player avoiding the screen may gain something for his team. No using the momemtum argument either. Going for the save is an intentional act, so there would be no momentum causing the player to leave the court if she did not choose to go after the ball.

Let's chew on this one a while. I think there are a lot of loopholes in this rule.

[cmathews]

The rule book says it is not legal to run oob...no loophole there...in order to save the ball from going out of bounds the player gets rid of the ball before they are out of bounds. You know you are where you were until you get where you are going....in the running OOB scenario, they are running OOB to get the ball...so nope no loopholes for me....

[gordon30307]

I think saving the ball is not the intent of this rule. I've had a number of occaissions where a player ran one or two feet OB under the basket to get to the other side of the court. It may hve been for only a few feet or so. I've got nothing if he/she never sees the ball and/or has no effect on the playing action. I've got a Tee if when he/she returns to the court and either immediately gets the ball or causes the defense to be at a disadvantage. This happened only one or two times to me this season and I had no reason to call a TEE. I think advantage/disadvantage works nicely at least for me.

[Edited by gordon30307 on Mar 4th, 2005 at 10:44 AM]

[Adam]

It's not a matter of advantage/disadvantage so much as it's a matter of the spirit an intent. Saving a ball and then falling out of bounds is a part of normal play, and is considered "an authorized reason." Essentially, "momentum" can carry a player out if it was momentum generated during legal activity on the playing court.
Running around a screen or cluster of players is not considered an authorized reason for leaving the playing court, and in fact is the spirit of this rule.

If you don't like it, and are that upset about it, take it up with the committee.

Personally, I don't like it. But I'm not that bothered by it.

[rainmaker]

Isn't there a case play that has to do with going oob to get around a screen? That's much different from jumping out of bounds to save a ball.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
It's not a matter of advantage/disadvantage so much as it's a matter of the spirit an intent. Saving a ball and then falling out of bounds is a part of normal play, and is considered "an authorized reason." Essentially, "momentum" can carry a player out if it was momentum generated during legal activity on the playing court.
Running around a screen or cluster of players is not considered an authorized reason for leaving the playing court, and in fact is the spirit of this rule.

If you don't like it, and are that upset about it, take it up with the committee.

Personally, I don't like it. But I'm not that bothered by it.

I'm not upset by it at all. To me it's similar to 3 second violations. If A1 is standing in the front court at the division line court with the ball and no one is guarding A1. Why would I call A2 with one foot in the lane for a 3 second violation if there is no advantage? To me the same principle applies.

[drothamel]

It would seem to me that the key difference is that in saving the ball, the player is actaully in bounds when saving the ball, and only out of bounds after saving it. So, he is making a legal, in-bounds play. In the "T" scenario, the player has an out of bounds status when avoiding the screen, and is using that status to gain an advantage.

[M&M Guy]

I believe I read in one of those brochures that was handed out at our pre-season rules interp meeting that the intent of the rule was to make sure the game was being played within the confines of the playing court. "Unauthorized" leaving of the playing court wasn't meant to include a player falling out of bounds trying to, say, save a ball from going out-of-bounds. Rather they specifically mentioned players leaving the court to avoid screens. In the rules committes' mind, this was "expanding" the playing court, because they were now using out-of-bounds areas for normal play. This is a definite advantage over other players who were staying in-bounds, because they were using more floor space than the actual court.

This may be an extreme example, but I believe I saw a video of a play that helps clarify "unauthorized". Picture a gym with a wall behind one of the baskets. There are two doors along this wall, each around where the 3-point line intersects the baseline. The video shows a player, during a live ball, running full speed out one of the doors. Then, while the players are kind of standing around wondering what's happening, this player comes back in the other door, steps in-bounds, accepts the pass, and shoots the open shot. That's certainly unauthorized, but wasn't specifically covered by the rules.

[Adam]

Originally posted by gordon30307

I'm not upset by it at all. To me it's similar to 3 second violations. If A1 is standing in the front court at the division line court with the ball and no one is guarding A1. Why would I call A2 with one foot in the lane for a 3 second violation if there is no advantage? To me the same principle applies.

Sorry, I was referring to Hartsy.

[zebraman]

No loophole at all. An official needs to understand the rule AND it's intent.

Z

[Adam]

Originally posted by zebraman
No loophole at all. An official needs to understand the rule AND it's intent.

Z

My, aren't we just a tad bit demanding?

[VaCoach]

I think the best answer for this would be a rule change that simply states, "if a player leaves the court to gain an advantage,it would be a violation" Most refs would call this, its tough to call the "T" when a player runs 3 feet out of bounds on the baseline.

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by VaCoach
I think the best answer for this would be a rule change that simply states, "if a player leaves the court to gain an advantage,it would be a violation" Most refs would call this, its tough to call the "T" when a player runs 3 feet out of bounds on the baseline.

How is this a tough T call? What are you teaching your players? You play ball inbounds, not out of bounds. It is against the rules and penalized by a T because the rules committee considers this to be very unsportmanlike to gain an advantage that way.

I have called this without a warning when a kid went around a screen oob and came in under the basket, got the pass and laid it in. The poor defender was trying to get around the screen in bounds. To the kid's credit, he came to me after the game to get an explanation of the rule and he told me his coach designed the play that way.

I have also warned the player when no advantage resulted from the play. I don't want to T players but we should not let blantant plays go. Should the penalty be changed to a violation? maybe. Should the penalty be changed to a T on the head coach? I like that idea better, I have no problem giving a T where it is deserved. It is your responsibility to teach your players the game.

[Hartsy]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
If you don't like it, and are that upset about it, take it up with the committee.

Nope. Not at all upset by the rule. Just wanted to see what you folks thought about its clarity.

The responses were about what I had imagined. It might be helpful to have a more specific list of "authorized reasons" printed somewhere. I also like to look at it, as someone said, as a rule intended to keep play on the court.
Going OOB around a legal screen is not in line with that.

[gordon30307]

Should the penalty be changed to a violation? maybe. Should the penalty be changed to a T on the head coach? I like that idea better, I have no problem giving a T where it is deserved. It is your responsibility to teach your players the game. [/B][/QUOTE]


Tee the Head Coach because a player deliberately left the court!!!!!!!! Might as well Tee the Head Coach every time a player fouls. Little heavy handed don't you think?