Rules Changes

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by johnny1784
[/B]

Just picture the play in which A1 and A2 set a double screen along the lane line against the end line. A3 is set up in the corner and A4 is swinging the ball around the perimeter to A5 who will get it to A3 for the shot. B1 desperately needs to get past the double screen set by A1 and A2, who MAY NOT STEP OOB, so B1 simply runs OOB and around them to get over to A3 in time to prevent the shot attempt.
This used to be a T on B1. It now appears that the most the official can do is stop the game and award the ball to Team A for an end line throw-in. Not much of a deterrent. How many coaches really want to see their offensive set interrupted for this violation?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Use "advantage/disadvantage" by holding your whistle to see the play through. If the offense loses possession or A1 misses the shot, blow your whistle for a violation on B1 but if A1 scores, and then ignore the violation.

No advantages gained by the defender or in case the offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason, use the same method.

Do remember... there is no time limit on a whistle.
[/B][/QUOTE]Wow! No time limit on a whistle? Wait for 4-5-6 seconds on this play to see whether the shot went in or not after the defender went OOB, and if it didn't, you then call the violation? Don't think so!

Use advantage/disadvantage if an offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason too? There's no way in hell that was the purpose and intent when this rule was implemented. The rulesmakers put this rule in to try and stop players from leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. The only judgement we have on this call is whether the player's reason for leaving the floor was legit or not. If we rule it wasn't, we call the violation. We don't wait until later.

Bad, bad, bad advice imo.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by johnny1784

Do remember... there is no time limit on a whistle.

Not quite, Johnny - the only listed exceptions are for technical fouls against team B during a fast break by team A and for certain free-throw violations by team B.

We can certainly have what many call "delayed whistles" for fouls, but I would argue that technically, there's no such thing. The whistle may come appreciably after the contact, but the foul doesn't exist until the official recognizes it as such.

(end metaphysical discussion)

A violation, OTOH, exists when the conditions for the violation are met. Some of us may "miss" the defensive player stepping OOB under some circumstances and, in the real world, whistles may be slightly delayed. By rule, however, there is no support for a delayed whistle.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Wow! No time limit on a whistle? Wait for 4-5-6 seconds on this play to see whether the shot went in or not after the defender went OOB, and if it didn't, you then call the violation? Don't think so!

Use advantage/disadvantage if an offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason too? There's no way in hell that was the purpose and intent when this rule was implemented. The rulesmakers put this rule in to try and stop players from leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. The only judgement we have on this call is whether the player's reason for leaving the floor was legit or not. If we rule it wasn't, we call the violation. We don't wait until later.

Bad, bad, bad advice imo.

This is exactly why creating a (more-or-less) new category of infraction -- namely the defensive violation -- is a problem. It hasn't been well thought out in these terms. With the defensive kick, defense gains an advantage, and the whistle takes that away. But in the case of the defender stepping oob around a screen as a way to take away an obvious advantage, there's no way to counteract the illegal advantage gained. The rules require us to give the defense the illegal advantage.

It isn't like it's going to happen very often, but the one time it does, it'll be a huge issue. I wish they'd change it BEFORE someone loses a game because of it. But I don't expect they will.

[refTN]

Someone please help me understand! Am I to understand that everybody is talking about calling a violation on the defense? When I first read the rule and still read it, I interpret it as the intent being to penalize the offense. For example, a player using a low screen near the baseline and going OOB to use the screen. Why would we even think to penalize the defense. Who would get the ball? The team who just had it, right? Why is this such a big deal?

I'm sure I am just not understanding something? If anyone could take the time to explain, I would appreciate it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by refTN
Someone please help me understand! Am I to understand that everybody is talking about calling a violation on the defense? When I first read the rule and still read it, I interpret it as the intent being to penalize the offense. For example, a player using a low screen near the baseline and going OOB to use the screen. Why would we even think to penalize the defense. Who would get the ball? The team who just had it, right? Why is this such a big deal?

I'm sure I am just not understanding something? If anyone could take the time to explain, I would appreciate it.

Why do you interpret this rule as only applying to the offensive team? Do you have some rules language that we haven't heard about yet?

You don't feel that the defense should be penalized if they get an unfair advantage by going OOB? If an offensive player goes OOB to use a screen, that's a violation-- but if a defensive player goes OOB to use(avoid) the same screen, that's OK?

[blindzebra]

It's not the first time this has happened.

Remember when they required LGP in bounds for the defense, many wondered why we did not have the same requirements for screeners mentioned in the rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Why do you interpret this rule as only applying to the offensive team? Do you have some rules language that we haven't heard about yet?

Maybe he thinks that way because most of the interpretations have nothing to do with defense at all. Referee Magazine gives some plays with only one talking about the defense at all. That one play talks about gaining an advantage for a rebounding spot by a defensive player. I have not ever seen this is a game I have ever worked.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
You don't feel that the defense should be penalized if they get an unfair advantage by going OOB? If an offensive player goes OOB to use a screen, that's a violation-- but if a defensive player goes OOB to use(avoid) the same screen, that's OK?

I do not think his point is "it is OK" for the defense to go out of bounds. I think his point is if they go out of bounds, why are you going to stop the clock and give the ball back to the offense that already had the ball? Now you let the defense set up to stop the offense when earlier they probably were not in a good position to do so. I think he has a very legitimate point.

Peace

[refTN]

I quit.

J Rut read my post in team control foul signal sequence and you will know why.

Just 122 posts in.

I can see penalizing the a player during a rebound when he goes out of bounds to come back in and get a better position. I do not understand, however, blowing the whistle to stop play and just give the ball OOB to the team who already had it. Kind of pointless isn't it? If I was a defender I would go under every screen and step OOB everytime I could, especially if I could not keep up with the kid(I could keep up with him).

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by refTN
I quit.

J Rut read my post in team control foul signal sequence and you will know why.

Just 122 posts in.

I am not following your point.

Originally posted by refTN
I can see penalizing the a player during a rebound when he goes out of bounds to come back in and get a better position. I do not understand, however, blowing the whistle to stop play and just give the ball OOB to the team who already had it. Kind of pointless isn't it? If I was a defender I would go under every screen and step OOB everytime I could, especially if I could not keep up with the kid(I could keep up with him).

Did I not just make this same point?

Peace

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Why do you interpret this rule as only applying to the offensive team? Do you have some rules language that we haven't heard about yet?

You don't feel that the defense should be penalized if they get an unfair advantage by going OOB? If an offensive player goes OOB to use a screen, that's a violation-- but if a defensive player goes OOB to use(avoid) the same screen, that's OK?

IMO, most officials do not have the guts to make this call or many others. Last year, a technical was issued for going OOB for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason whether it was a defender or an offensive player. I feel a technical would serve a better purpose than a violation.

What are the new mechanics for this new rule and for TC's?

[Ref in PA]

If the defense were to use this tactic for an advantage such as:

A1 steals the ball and is at mid court on his way for an uncontested lay-up. B5, steps oob and says to the old lead/new trail "hey ref, I am oob." Tweet! violation. Put ball in play at the BC end line because that is where the violation occurred?

or

Team B wants a time out but Team A is in control of the ball, B1 steps oob to get the violation. Team B did not have to foul to stop the clock and get the TO.

or

Team A has the ball in front court. B1 runs to the far end line oob to commit the violation. Tweet! Team A now has the ball for a spot throw-in at the far end-line. They could make the team keep bringing the ball up court time after time - an effective strategy at the end of the game to make a team burn time.

Maybe we have the latitude to interpret these plays and others as unsportsmanlike conduct and call a "T".

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
If the defense were to use this tactic for an advantage such as:

A1 steals the ball and is at mid court on his way for an uncontested lay-up. B5, steps oob and says to the old lead/new trail "hey ref, I am oob." Tweet! violation. Put ball in play at the BC end line because that is where the violation occurred?

or

Team B wants a time out but Team A is in control of the ball, B1 steps oob to get the violation. Team B did not have to foul to stop the clock and get the TO.

or

Team A has the ball in front court. B1 runs to the far end line oob to commit the violation. Tweet! Team A now has the ball for a spot throw-in at the far end-line. They could make the team keep bringing the ball up court time after time - an effective strategy at the end of the game to make a team burn time.

Maybe we have the latitude to interpret these plays and others as unsportsmanlike conduct and call a "T".

An excellent point!

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Just picture the play in which A1 and A2 set a double screen along the lane line against the end line. A3 is set up in the corner and A4 is swinging the ball around the perimeter to A5 who will get it to A3 for the shot. B1 desperately needs to get past the double screen set by A1 and A2, who MAY NOT STEP OOB, so B1 simply runs OOB and around them to get over to A3 in time to prevent the shot attempt.
This used to be a T on B1. It now appears that the most the official can do is stop the game and award the ball to Team A for an end line throw-in. Not much of a deterrent. How many coaches really want to see their offensive set interrupted for this violation?

[/B]

I agree to disagree with most of your reply. It is a very good decission to hold your whistle and see the entire play if warranted. But

Use "advantage/disadvantage" by holding your whistle to see the play through. If the offense loses possession or A1 misses the shot, blow your whistle for a violation on B1 but if A1 scores, and then ignore the violation.

No advantages gained by the defender or in case the offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason, use the same method.

Do remember... there is no time limit on a whistle.
[/B][/QUOTE]Wow! No time limit on a whistle? Wait for 4-5-6 seconds on this play to see whether the shot went in or not after the defender went OOB, and if it didn't, you then call the violation? Don't think so!

Use advantage/disadvantage if an offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason too? There's no way in hell that was the purpose and intent when this rule was implemented. The rulesmakers put this rule in to try and stop players from leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. The only judgement we have on this call is whether the player's reason for leaving the floor was legit or not. If we rule it wasn't, we call the violation. We don't wait until later.

Bad, bad, bad advice imo. [/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree with most of your reply. It is a very good decision to hold your whistle and see the entire play if warranted. But Ref PA made a very good suggestion regarding tactics used to gain an advantage by purposely going out of bounce to draw an immediate violation to consider using the unsporting behavior by issuing a technical.

Do you as a senior basketball official call every violation and every foul you see? If A1 breaks away on a fast break and B1 reaches across to make a steal but B1 has made illegal contact, impeding A1's direction, would you call a foul on B1 even though A1 has possession and scores a lay up?

Can you give me a better synopsis and suggestions on when it is appropriate to hold or not to hold your whistle, and when to use advantage/disadvantage techniques? Thanks.

ps
There is never a time limit on a whistle. You as an official can blow your whistle unlimited seconds after a violation or foul has been committed. It may not be acceptable to the coaches, fans, etc. but as an official you may have a slow reaction to what may have just occurred or you have a correctable error, in which there is limit based on dead ball.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by johnny1784
IMO, most officials do not have the guts to make this call or many others. Last year, a technical was issued for going OOB for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason whether it was a defender or an offensive player. I feel a technical would serve a better purpose than a violation.

What are the new mechanics for this new rule and for TC's?

When the penalty for this was a technical foul, it was almost never called, even with the POE last year. Why? Because a potential six point swing (loss of possession, plus free throws, plus the ball) is too stiff a penalty for this "crime." The penalty was, for all intents and purposes, unenforceable.

This year the committee has lessened the penalty to a violation, and we're likely to see some of these get called. Good, I've seen a big increase in this behavior lately. But it's created a potentially sticky situation when the defense commits this violation.

Admittedly we're not likely to see a huge increase in defensive violations. But some people are going to try it, just to see what advantage they can gain. Not every night, and not in every town, but a few people in a few places. There are just too many obvious "loopholes" to not have somebody try.

What the officials on those games will actually do about it remains to be seen. But for the sake of argument, what we need is some middle ground penalty for when the defense violates. One solution I like would be similar to the NBA penalty for defensive three seconds. Assess a team technical, give one free throw and put the ball back in play at the POI. It's got enough sting to make it not worth violating, but isn't so draconian that it wouldn't get called.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

When the penalty for this was a technical foul, it was almost never called, even with the POE last year. Why? Because a potential six point swing (loss of possession, plus free throws, plus the ball) is too stiff a penalty for this "crime." The penalty was, for all intents and purposes, unenforceable.

This year the committee has lessened the penalty to a violation, and we're likely to see some of these get called. Good, I've seen a big increase in this behavior lately. But it's created a potentially sticky situation when the defense commits this violation.

Admittedly we're not likely to see a huge increase in defensive violations. But some people are going to try it, just to see what advantage they can gain. Not every night, and not in every town, but a few people in a few places. There are just too many obvious "loopholes" to not have somebody try.

What the officials on those games will actually do about it remains to be seen. But for the sake of argument, what we need is some middle ground penalty for when the defense violates. One solution I like would be similar to the NBA penalty for defensive three seconds. Assess a team technical, give one free throw and put the ball back in play at the POI. It's got enough sting to make it not worth violating, but isn't so draconian that it wouldn't get called.

Use advantage/disadvantage.

But what are the new mechanics for the rule changes?