New violation: unintended advantage?

[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.