...no, they cannot.

In Chuck's play A3 has the authority to be OOB. Period. If the rule was meant to be taken as you interpret it then A3 would be whistled for a violation as soon as he stepped OOB, since the wording you provided states:

Which would effectively eliminate the ability of a team to have more than 1 player OOB on these throw-ins. If they were both in effect during this play that is.

Chuck, can you cite a <b>specific</b> rule that states that one of those restrictions <b>is</b> just being OOB during a non- designated spot throw-in? That's all we're asking. You sureasheck do need a rules citation to say that, if you want to negate the rules that I cited before.

Iow, what rule sez that a teammate of the thrower can't go around a screen OOB during a non-designated spot throw-in? Doing so isn't an "unauthorized" reason. It's legal(authorized) under 9-2-12 for the teammate to be OOB.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:41 PM]

You already know my answer :) It's 9-3-2, in my opinion. You disagree. We need an "authorized" expert to give an answer.

Sorry, but I did get your point.

As I keep saying, A3 has the right to go OOB in your play. It's covered in the rules specifying the throw-in.

Other things, such as elbow throwing and dropping an F bomb on you, are not specifically called out as being allowed in the throw-in provisions so they are covered by the rules concerning these other specific acts.

Example: Some towns have a default speed limit of 25 MPH. However, if the sign on a particular street says 55 MPH I cannot be ticketed for breaking the 25 MPH law. Because I'm authorized to go 55 MPH by that sign. Analogous to your elbow throw, I am NOT authorized to drive drunk so I can be arrested for that.

Exactly - what Chuck said.

Some highways have a default speed limit of 55 MPH. However, if the sign in a construction zone says 45 MPH, you can be ticketed for following the 55 MPH law.

It's the same thing. Both speeds are authorized. Which authorization supersedes? In the MPH examples, it's explicit. In the OOB examples, I don't think it's so explicit.

In your case I still could not get a ticket for exceeding the town's 25 MPH law in the 45 MPH zone because obviously the 45 MPH authorizes me to go that fast than the town limit. And no faster.

Ok, what I meant to say is the one rule that allows teammates to be OOB at the same time, which is the situation we're talking about.

Anyway, as much as I dislike squirrels (ever since one got into our basement when I was a kid caused a bunch of damage), I have to agree with Chuck. Going OOB to avoid a screen is the specific example given as to the violation, without any conditions, such as "except on a throw-in where more than one player is allowed OOB". But, I also agree that the logistics of when it should be called in this case present the problem. That's why when it comes to game time, and until Mary and her gang come up with a specific ruling on this example, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the player going OOB that they are part of the throw-in play. If it's obvious that all they're doing is avoiding the screen and they are not part of the throw-in, I'll call the violation and show the coach the Federation comments. It says it right there in black and white. (Oops, gotta be careful with that one...)

Good thread, Chuck.
It took right off, didn't it? :)

...Oh, and let the player go outa bounds without Foxin' him, he may get that pass, it may be part of the play. We dunno for certain what his intentions are.

mick

Yabut......there <b>are</b> "conditions" in R9-3-2. The condition is that to have a violation, the player must go OOB for an <b>unauthorized</b> reason. There are no <b>unauthorized</b> reasons listed anywhere in the rules that I know of that say any teammate of the thrower can illegally be OOB on the same endline during a non designated-spot throw-in. That's why we're asking somebody to cite such a rule if they know one. A player going OOB for an <b>authorized</b> or legal reason just doesn't meet the primary condition of R9-3-2.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 19th, 2005 at 05:36 PM]

Either wording is fine with me. The typical play given still stands on it's own. You're adding the conditional language of "except when there's a non-designated spot throw-in". Of course, I'm adding the "except when a teammate is avoiding a screen" language to 7-5-7.

1. I don't see anything in this about it this violation call being applied to the defense or offense. What's to stop a defensive player from stepping out of bounds to get a stoppage in play? (think of the implications of this... Fast break and devensive player steps OOB on the sideline in front of the ref to get the violation call - negating the fast break. (now I know that as a referee I'd have to be stupid to call it, but according to the rule...)
2. (To clarify) Is the ball inbounded from the location of the infraction, or the closest oob spot of the ball?

No, you're claiming this brief explanation is the final word from the NF on how the rule is to be interpreted.

It's not, afaik it's just part of a press release.

And I'm not adding anything that isn't already in that release, iow "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason". Apparently you're claiming somehow A3 going OOB in Chuck's play is somehow not "authorized".

I'm claiming it is.

We all agree, maybe, that, under 7-5-7
 

We all agree, maybe, that, under 7-5-7 a teammate of the thrower-inner, after a made basket, may be out of bounds.

But what, if anything, is authorized, or prohibited, about the circumstances of re-entry?

In the case I suggested to you earlier, there is an imperative about re-entry in operation: "Though Shalt Come Directly Onto The Court." Yet, as I pointed out, a player could be unduly delayed in doing so if not allowed to step around an obstructionist defender. Is it anywhere elaborated that the player coming in, given the choice, must take the shorter (if only slightly so) path, however disadvantageous? I don't think so.

Now imagine that defender B1 is guarding A1 and is moved over 1-player width, so that A2 in actually in front of A1, and the shorter path is now to step around teammate A2. Further, what if B1 is oriented so that a line drawn between his or her feet is perpendicular to the boundary line? Is this suddenly a foul, an illegal screen, or . . . is the matter moot before we even get to that, because of a violation?

If there is a violation, is it a violation of:

1. of the throw-in, if the thrower-inner steps out the spot to either side in order to come inbounds BEFORE the ball has been touched on the court and the throw-in ends?

2. or, presuming the ball is touched in-bounds, of the requirement to come directly back inbounds after leaving the court for an authorized reason, as in "My momentum made me do it?"

This stuff happens, and generally, nobody notices. You can win a lot of games with smart players. Historically, gaps in the rules, where unbridged by interpretation, provide advantages have been explored and exploited by coaches since coaches were invented (oh treacherous day).

Neither the new rules nor any interpretation, addresses whether or not the obstruction of a A2 being on his/her chosen spot on the floor is a screen when the beneficiary is coming in from out of bounds.

Powers not expressly given to the Federal government are reserved to the States, until fought over from 1861-1865.