New violation: unintended advantage?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
I don't see a good solution until further direction is given from the rules committee.

I agree 100%.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I agree 100%.

I agree 110%

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I agree 110%

Grrrrrrrrr!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Grrrrrrrrr!

As Elwood Blues said "We're on a mission from God".

Still trying to make your head explode.

Literally.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I'm not trying to be dumb here, nor am I trying to stir the pot. My previous understanding of this rule was that it was there to penalize deliberate, obvious unsporting behavior, not merely a technical violation of the rules. The one time I ever called this was when a kid went oob on the endline, ran entirely oob to the far three-point line and came back inbounds to catch a pass for an open shot. Because I considered that this was an unsporting behavior rule, I never questioned what the definition of leaving the court was. I figured it was like porn.

I'm just trying to be a good little referee and understand not only the intent of the rule, but also the definitions required to enforce it. But the committee hasn't given us a definition. And frankly they're sending rather mixed signals. On the one hand there is the language: "leaving the court." Based on the block/charge/foot on the line rule, the committee's definition of "on the court" seems to mean entirely inbounds.

On the other hand, in their press release they share this blatant example: "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." There are three distinct aspects which make this example so egregious: the player's distance off the court, the distance which he travels before returning and the advantage gained by getting free of his defender.

Then they turn right around and effectively negate this very porn example with this very precisely worded statement: "The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court." That is long before we know how far the player will travel or what advantage he will gain. So those aspects would seem to have no bearing on the call. The committee seems to be saying the only criteria needed to judge this violation is the undefined act of leaving the court.

Obviously being entirely inbounds is not leaving the court. The phrase "outside the end line" is part of their blatant example of leaving the court. So the line between leaving and not leaving clearly lies somewhere in the range of those two extremes. But where exactly?

I'm not searching for opportunities to make this call. However, I may very well have to defend not making this call to an angry coach. I don't need porn, I need a definition.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
[/B]

I'm not searching for opportunities to make this call. However, I may very well have to defend not making this call to an angry coach. I don't need porn, I need a definition. [/B][/QUOTE]The rule says that leaving the court for "an unauthorized reason" is a violation. Iow, it's still a judgement call- same as when the penalty was a "T". If a player didn't deliberately go OOB, in your opinion, then you don't have a call.

I think that you would apply the same criteria to the call now as you did before-- i.e. (a)did the player deliberately leave the court? (b)did the player then gain an advantage by deliberately leaving the court? If so, call the violation.

[Nevadaref]

Well said BITS. We'll have to start calling you Justice Potter Stewart. I've had the same thoughts about this rule change over the summer. I've come the conclusion that the intent of the rule is to limit the offensive team (as far as the rule applies to the offense) to a specified area so that the defense has a fair chance, and the game is balanced, by only having to defend within that space.

Therefore, if the offensive player significantly increases the space where the defender has to guard him by using the OOB area that is gaining an advantage and thus merits a violation. One large step OOB certainly meets this, while a foot on the line while posting up or running the end line probably doesn't. That first is literally overstepping the prescribed bounds of the game while the latter is merely being brief OOB during the normal course of playing the game, which is bound to happen given that the game is played in a limited space. It still is a judgment call.

For the record, I firmly believe that the defense has to play the game within these same space limits and should be penalized for not doing so. It is just that the violation has been shown to be a problematic penalty when applied to the defense.

BTW Justice Stewart made his famous quip, "I know it when I see it," about obscenity, not porn. The difference being that obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment, while adult porn is legal. Just a technical FYI since we all enjoy learning from each other on this forum.

[tomegun]

Nevadaref, where have you been and where is AAR?

Vegas 07!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
On the other hand, in their press release they share this blatant example: "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." There are three distinct aspects which make this example so egregious: the player's distance off the court, the distance which he travels before returning and the advantage gained by getting free of his defender.

Then they turn right around and effectively negate this very porn example with this very precisely worded statement: "The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court." That is long before we know how far the player will travel or what advantage he will gain. So those aspects would seem to have no bearing on the call. The committee seems to be saying the only criteria needed to judge this violation is the undefined act of leaving the court.

IMO you are completely overthinking the entire issue.

There is no contradiction in the press release. If you look at the trajectory of the player as he comes OOB you can easily tell if he's gotten OOB inadvertently or not by what he does within the first step or 2. I believe what the press release is telling us is as soon as you judge the player is intending to break the rule call it. This differs from the NCAA version which requires us to wait until the offending player comes back in bounds & is first to touch the ball.

More generally, as someone has already said the only difference this year is the penalty. IOW call it the same way.

I'm not searching for opportunities to make this call. However, I may very well have to defend not making this call to an angry coach. I don't need porn, I need a definition.

If your coaches are required to attend a rules meeting there should be no problem at all, assuming you call it the way the rule gets explained to them.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
I'm just trying to be a good little referee and understand not only the intent of the rule,...

Now c'mon, BITS. No, you're not. Do you really think the intent of this rule is to allow the defense to force a violation by running OOB while A1 is on a fast break?

That was your initial post that started this thread. Now surely you realize that this is not the intent of the rule. Therefore, the statement above is completely false, is't it?

Camron has already told you what you needed to know. "The violation is to prevent a team from gaining an advantage by going OOB."

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Now c'mon, BITS. No, you're not. Do you really think the intent of this rule is to allow the defense to force a violation by running OOB while A1 is on a fast break?

That was your initial post that started this thread. Now surely you realize that this is not the intent of the rule. Therefore, the statement above is completely false, is't it?

Camron has already told you what you needed to know. "The violation is to prevent a team from gaining an advantage by going OOB."

No, Tony, I don't think that is the intent of the rule, and I have no intention of making that call. However the actual wording of the rule seems to support it, maybe even require it.

Dan is right, I am overthinking it. I can't help myself. This was an obscure little backwater rule buried at the end of the book for years until the committee shined their spotlight on it recently. The more I think about it, the more questions I have, none of which are answered by the rulebook. That's why I keep tacking new questions onto this thread.

I'm a bear of very little brain. I need to think through things before they happen on the court if I'm going to make the right call, doubly so if I'm going to have to explain the call (or no-call) to a coach.


[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Aug 7th, 2005 at 02:34 AM]

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by refnrev

How do you square that with the rules? The penalty explicity says that "the ball is dead when the violation occurs." I don't see how, by rule, you can have a delayed whistle on this. You either have to pass on the call entirely or cancel the result of the play and bring the ball back to the spot of the violation (which could be clear back to the far endline if that's where the opponent left the court).
[/B][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _________

Back in the Saddle, I don't understand why you don't think you CAN have a delayed whistle on this. It would be the same as whacking a coach or player who mouthed off at you before a scoring opportunity by the other team after the made basket, would it not? [/B][/QUOTE]


You betcha. Message sent. Justice served.

Keep in mind that, as rule based systems go, the Federation rules are not very well written. There are plenty of inherently undecidable propositions created by the rules.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by tomegun
Nevadaref, where have you been and where is AAR?

Vegas 07!

I've been spending a lot of time in CA lately, but T and I are around.

PS I hear that NBA is imposing a one week ban on basketball betting at ALL of the Vegas casinos as part of the All-Star game deal. WHY??? I just don't see the point.

Interesting that they will allow the All-Star game to be played there, but won't put a franchise in that city though.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

You betcha. Message sent. Justice served.

Keep in mind that, as rule based systems go, the Federation rules are not very well written. There are plenty of inherently undecidable propositions created by the rules.

No, no, no.

There is a specific rule reference allowing a delayed whistle in the case of an unsportsmanlike conduct technical on team B (10.4.1 E). Note that the rule reference is from 10-4 - technical fouls.

You may be able to get away with a delayed whistle on this violation. However, there is NO rule support whatsoever for it. In addition, it could bite you in the a** if anything happens in the intervening period between the player stepping OOB and you blowing the whistle.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

No, no, no.

There is a specific rule reference allowing a delayed whistle in the case of an unsportsmanlike conduct technical on team B (10.4.1 E). Note that the rule reference is from 10-4 - technical fouls.

You may be able to get away with a delayed whistle on this violation. However, there is NO rule support whatsoever for it. In addition, it could bite you in the a** if anything happens in the intervening period between the player stepping OOB and you blowing the whistle.

Mark: a good example of this particular discretion is when A1 is on a breakaway and B1 fouls A2 before A1 has picked the ball up for the layup/dunk. This is not covered by the rule exception designed to thwart this kind of behavior . . . but, unless the foul is outrageous, a T (unsportsmanlike conduct - you can always call that, yuh know!) or an intentional personal is overkill. Just delay the whistle slightly . . .