Based on...??

Would you have called this a technical foul before the penalty change this year? If so, then call the violation. If not then let it go.

For me personally, I think the rule (although it is not specific) applies to live balls in bounds. Restrictions have been outlined for throw-in plays by rule and they allow offense players to voluntarily go oob along the end line - they don't specify the reason, just that it is okay. By the same token the restriction is different for a defensive player with different penalties. Because the play is specifically covered in the rule book as being allowable during a throw-in, I do not think 9-3-2 is intended to cover this.

A cry for interpretation
 

There's a variation on this theme, is there not?

A1 is throwing the ball in. B1 is defending, standing at the boundary line directly in front of A1. A2 stands right next to B1. A1 throws the ball in to A3, then steps around A2 to come in bounds, taking the shortest path possible in that particular direction.

This may violate the requirement that the player out-of-bounds come directly on to the court. (It's not a 'throw-in spot' violation, as I see it, the ball has been released).

But one jailhouse lawyer (uh, make that 'player') once argued to me that he couldn't come directly onto the court - that B1 was standing in his way, and (how beautiful is this!) that to wait for B1 to get out of his way violated his right to come on the court right away (right to a speedy trial . . .).

What I see as a gating problem with the application of the new rule 9-3-2 to the case you describe is that the screen occurs too far away in time after the initiating act. What if A2 goes out of bounds pure of heart, without intent to gain undue advantage. Subsequently, s/he changes her/his mind - say A1 is not on the same page and doesn't even look over at A2 - and, time running out, aborts the original plan and comes back in bounds as directly as is practicable, meaning not through defender B2, which would be illegal contact, but taking the shortest path possible, right next to A3, who happens to be there?

It's just mucked up.
 

<U>Unauthorized Leaving the Court</U> <I>by the book</I>:
<LI>2002-03 Rule 10-3-4
<LI>2003-04 Rule 10-3-3
<LI>2005-06 Rule 9-3-2


From what I gather, the intent of 9-3-2 is to make parts of <B>Old 10-3-3</B> a more practical rule. [*][<I><B>New 10-3-3</B> now only says "A player shall not ...Delay returning after legally being out of bounds."]</I>
The "Leaving the Court" <U>cases</U>, that I have just reread (... since 2001), all emphasize the penalty being imposed on the presumedly, unintended Offensive advantage.

That is not to say that the Defense is allowed to leave the court, because neither the <B>Old 10-3-4</B>, nor the <B>Old 10-3-3</B>, offer/imply any words, or cases, to the effect that this is a rule for the Offense only.

I gather that the intent is to merely keep the players between the lines so as to avoid the dreaded, unintended advantage/disadvantage. ...In my opinion.
mick

I await the application to the Defense on this rule, ...where A3 runs out of bounds and B3 follows....
Is this a double violation? Apparently not since the ball becomes dead when the Offensive player steps out. :)

I can't see where the endline is to know whether they are oob...

...or are these guys the screeners?

Jurassic, we need more details.

Re: It's just mucked up.
 

Aren't the thrower's teamates <b>authorized</b> to leave the floor <b>during</b> an endline non-spot throw-in, as per R9-2-3, 9-2-12 and 7-5-7?

From the NFHS website:

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.

According to the NF, leaving the court to get around a screen to free up from a defender is an unauthorized reason to leave the court. It doesn't say anything about "except during a throw-in after a basket". Now, if the player, while he's OOB, turns and looks at their teammate as if they might be expecting a pass, then that is certainly allowed under the throw-in provisions. So it seems as though we need to judge intent somehow. If the intent is to be a part of the throw-in, then no violation. If the intent is to solely evade a defender around the screen, then it seems to be a violation.

That's the key word right there-- "unauthorized"

Teammates of a thrower <b>are</b> authorized and <b>can</b> legally be OOB during a non-spot throw-in, as per the rules I cited. Those rules are still in the book and haven't changed.

Re: Re: It's just mucked up.
 

Obviously.
Your point is...?
mick

Coupla things, 2M Guy:

1. You are incorrect when you say that "According to the NF". The NF did nothing more than give an example of the play that they consider "typical". If I say I "typically" have a glass of wine, or 2, with dinner does that mean I arrive under the influence if I eat diner before a game?

2. Then you go on to give an example of how we could properly judge A3's intent under your interp - by waiting to see what A3 does after he goes OOB. Yet the rule says we have to call the violation as soon as the player leaves the court.

Which is it?

I agree, this sounds like an interesting argument but right now I'd say its legal. I'd like to see the verbiage of the new rule.

Re: Re: Re: It's just mucked up.
 

If you agree that the thrower's teammates are authorized to leave the court during a non-spot throw-in, then how does that fit in with your other statement "I gather the intent of the rule is to merely keep the players between the lines so as to avoid the dreaded, unintented advantage/disadvantage.."? :confused:

The teammates of the throwers don't have to keep between the lines on a non-spot throw-in. They can be legally OOB until the throw-in ends. That's when R10-3-3 kicks in.

That's my point.

I'm with Bob on this. I would think that in 99% of the cases, you will be able to tell if the player is oob to recieve the pass or if they're oob getting around the screen. You can look to see if their hands are up and they're looking at the ball. I realize that we're opening ourselves up for questions by looking for the intent of the player, but that's part of the game in other areas as well. Kind of an official's judgement to me.

See that, we agree. Teammates are authorized to be OOB during a baseline throw-in.

And, we also agree the key word is "unauthorized". The NF has given us an unauthorized reason for leaving the court, and that is to use a screen and the OOB to get away from a defender. They say we must take away that tremendous advantage. And that is what happened here - the player used the screen and OOB to evade the defender.

Now, I know I'm on shaky ground when I say that means we have to determine intent. And Dan, I agree it also says we must call the violation as soon as the player steps OOB, and we certainly can't determine intent until they go back in. But it also doesn't say, "except during non-spot throw-ins".

What if this screen happened along the sideline instead of the endline, during this throw-in? It would be a violation, right? But, 7-5-7 says they may pass the ball along the endline to a teammate(s) outside the boundary line. It doesn't say the teammate has to be outside the endline. So, can the teammate(s) be OOB anywhere on the court?

I guess I'm using the "intent" to be able to justify both being able to be OOB during this throw-in, AND not using the screen just to eliminate the defender, which is the exact example given by the NF as an unauthorized reason for leaving the court. I would certainly like to see a clarification from the NF, although that would eliminate my popcorn-eating.

Sorry, I checked out for a while. But no, I didn't see this happen. The question arose from a thread over on McGriff's.

My opinion, now that a bunch of people have "weight" in, is that a player is never authorized to be OOB to go around a screen. The fact that a player is allowed to be OOB in certain circumstances doesn't give him license to do whatever he wants while he's OOB.