New violation: unintended advantage?

[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.