New violation: unintended advantage?

[just another ref]

There is a paragraph near the front of your rule book which covers this. It says something to the effect that a player/team shall not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Nuff said?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by just another ref
Nuff said?

Apparently not, b/c we've had at least two or three threads on this exact subject. The new rule appears to apply equally to offense and defense but we have not seen any case book plays to guide us on the intent of applying it to the defender.

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Apparently not, b/c we've had at least two or three threads on this exact subject. The new rule appears to apply equally to offense and defense but we have not seen any case book plays to guide us on the intent of applying it to the defender.

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

It seems the intent is quite clear (i.e.,to eliminate the advantage to the offense) and to disregard the defense.
If we call the violation on the defense, then how could that not be an unintended disadvantage to the offense?

Calling the violation on the defense stops the play and awards a throw-in to the team with the ball, thus disrupting the offense. If a shot clock were being used, then, I guess, it may be proper to give the offense a re-set.
mick

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by mick

Calling the violation on the defense stops the play and awards a throw-in to the team with the ball, thus disrupting the offense. If a shot clock were being used, then, I guess, it may be proper to give the offense a re-set.
mick

Assuming, of course, that the state association says this situation should be a shot-clock reset.

I could see a problem where states don't work this into their shot clock rules, an assignor tells his/her refs to call this on the defense, and team A is now awarded a throw-in with 1 second left on the shot clock. (Or worse - one second left in the game.)

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Assuming, of course, that the state association says this situation should be a shot-clock reset.

I could see a problem where states don't work this into their shot clock rules, an assignor tells his/her refs to call this on the defense, and team A is now awarded a throw-in with 1 second left on the shot clock. (Or worse - one second left in the game.)

Mark,
Assignors are also Interpreters?
Hmmm. Doesn't feel right.
mick

[Ref in PA]

First, I want to say that I think this rule should apply to the offense only.

However, the rule, as written does not specify offense or defense. To assume that it applies to offense only is not right, even thouth the commentary example was for an offensive play. So the second point I want to make is that unless we see language that limits this violation to the offense only, there will be some refs who will apply it to both offense and defense.

I do not consider a defensive player leaving the court gaining an advantage for the defense. I can think of several situations where the defense could gain an advantage if the violation is called, but only if the violation is called. B1 leaves the court, no whistle, no advantage. B1 leaves the court, whistle, possible advantage for team B.

I outlined a couple of scenarios in the "rule changes" thread http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...7&pagenumber=4 where I thought the defense could benefit if the violation were to be called.

[mick]

Set up outa bounds to take a charge --> Violation or Block.
We get to choose.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by mick

Mark,
Assignors are also Interpreters?
Hmmm. Doesn't feel right.
mick

May not be the best set-up, but I'd be willing to bet that many of us have been told by an assignor of some sort how they feel about certain rules and how they are or are not called. Those interpretations may not be 100% correct rule-wise, but when in Roma . . .

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by mick
Set up outa bounds to take a charge --> Violation or Block.
We get to choose.

Just to spark a little discussion....

First one to occur is the one we call, isn't it.

Before the charge can happen OOB, the defender must be OOB, thus in violation before the collision. Otherwise the defender is not OOB and it is a charge.

Doesn't this sound a lot like a phantom travel call that is so common when there is a charge at mid-court when a player just receives the ball...except for, of course, the travel is really a made up call since it didn't really happen (I don't call it either).

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
First, I want to say that I think this rule should apply to the offense only.

However, the rule, as written does not specify offense or defense. To assume that it applies to offense only is not right, even thouth the commentary example was for an offensive play. So the second point I want to make is that unless we see language that limits this violation to the offense only, there will be some refs who will apply it to both offense and defense.

I do not consider a defensive player leaving the court gaining an advantage for the defense. I can think of several situations where the defense could gain an advantage if the violation is called, but only if the violation is called. B1 leaves the court, no whistle, no advantage. B1 leaves the court, whistle, possible advantage for team B.

I outlined a couple of scenarios in the "rule changes" thread http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...7&pagenumber=4 where I thought the defense could benefit if the violation were to be called.

If you are referring only to the sitch where the defense steps out during an open fast-break, in order to stop the play, then yes, you're right.

But for the defense to step oob around a screen in order to defend a shot is certainly and advantage and has been gained illegally. The times I've seen this is when the screener is under the basket, and an offensive player wants to get free to catch a pass for a quick shot. If the defense doesn't step oob, she gets screened, and the offensive play works. If the defender DOES step oob, she can get around the screen and has a chance to poke or intercept the pass. That's an advantage, illegally gained, and is one of the situations that the rule is meant to address -- or at least, it ought to be!

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by rainmaker

If you are referring only to the sitch where the defense steps out during an open fast-break, in order to stop the play, then yes, you're right.

But for the defense to step oob around a screen in order to defend a shot is certainly and advantage and has been gained illegally. The times I've seen this is when the screener is under the basket, and an offensive player wants to get free to catch a pass for a quick shot. If the defense doesn't step oob, she gets screened, and the offensive play works. If the defender DOES step oob, she can get around the screen and has a chance to poke or intercept the pass. That's an advantage, illegally gained, and is one of the situations that the rule is meant to address -- or at least, it ought to be!

Posted by another official in this forum, a basketball official might consider giving a technical for unsporting behavior when a defensive player intentionally goes off the court for an unauthorized reason on a fast break or IMO you could hold your whistle on the play and let the offensive player score the lay up. But my reasoning for using advantage/disadvantage on a violation would be considered wrong by some or many OFFICIATING.COM members. Ask your association for their interpretation.

[BLydic]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Just to spark a little discussion....

Before the charge can happen OOB, the defender must be OOB, thus in violation before the collision. Otherwise the defender is not OOB and it is a charge.

[/B]

IMO if a defender is setup OOB, there shouldn't be any contact with the offensive player, unless he/she goes OOB as well.

If a defender is setup 99% in bounds and a toe on the line, I wouldn't consider that a violation and would call the block.

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by rainmaker


If you are referring only to the sitch where the defense steps out during an open fast-break, in order to stop the play, then yes, you're right.

But for the defense to step oob around a screen in order to defend a shot is certainly and advantage and has been gained illegally. The times I've seen this is when the screener is under the basket, and an offensive player wants to get free to catch a pass for a quick shot. If the defense doesn't step oob, she gets screened, and the offensive play works. If the defender DOES step oob, she can get around the screen and has a chance to poke or intercept the pass. That's an advantage, illegally gained, and is one of the situations that the rule is meant to address -- or at least, it ought to be!

Good point. But, are you going to whistle it immediately or wait until the defender has intercepted or poked away the ball? Blowing the play dead immediately will disrupt the game, most likely unnecessarily. Withholding the whistle until the play is complete and then blowing the violation is not advisable either. Tweet, I am calling a violation on B1 after she blocked A1's shot because B1 stepped oob four seconds ago. So, to me, the only choice is to call the violation immediately. If we start calling those violations, then do we overlook violations that are clearly meant to disrupt the advantage of the offense ("Look Ref, I am oob, call the violation). I have visions of when the wrestler goes to the edge of the ring and sticks an arm or leg outside the ropes so the opponent has to break the hold.

I do agree that a defender going oob to get around a screen could give the defense the advantage of being in position to defend another player. I don't see a good solution until further direction is given from the rules committee.

[Back In The Saddle]

In all of the discussion so far we haven't gotten too specific about how a player actually violates. I'm left wondering what the definition of leaving the court is. If a player touches the oob line, has he left the court, Does he need to be entirely oob to qualify? Is one foot entirely oob sufficient? What exactly is the definition of this new violation?

The committee's emphasis on playing the game on the court has previously focused on whether a defender is touching the oob line and how that affects block/charge. Surely the committee doesn't intend that any time anybody steps on any oob line they have left the court and have violated? Do they?

How exactly does a player leave the court?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
In all of the discussion so far we haven't gotten too specific about how a player actually violates. I'm left wondering what the definition of leaving the court is. If a player touches the oob line, has he left the court, Does he need to be entirely oob to qualify? Is one foot entirely oob sufficient? What exactly is the definition of this new violation?

The committee's emphasis on playing the game on the court has previously focused on whether a defender is touching the oob line and how that affects block/charge. Surely the committee doesn't intend that any time anybody steps on any oob line they have left the court and have violated? Do they?

How exactly does a player leave the court?

The rule covers leaving the court for an unauthorized reason-- iow, in order to gain an illegal advantage. Under the old rule, it was never a T if a player inadvertantly stepped on a line-- only if that player deliberately went OOB to gain an advantage. The only thing that has changed is the penalty- not the reason for the rule being in the book in the first place. This kinda goes hand-in-hand also with calling an automatic block on the defender if he's standing OOB. In that case, they felt that defender was gaining an illegal advantage on defense by being OOB.

If a player goes OOB inadvertantly and comes right back in, there's no problem- and no call, just like it's always been.