Yabut, I did. Well, ok, not the rules, but the comments on the rules:

Comments on the 2005-06 Rules Revisions, Release Date: 5/10/05, NFHS website.

Ok, they don't carry the same weight as the rules and casebook, but it gives us an idea of what the rules committee is trying to address. And the one play that is addressed, that they say is an unauthorized leaving of the court, is going OOB to avoid or go around a screen. As Chuck asked, does that supercede the right of any member of the throw-in team being able to go OOB? I say probably, you say no. Since it is a POE, I'm assuming the going around a screen OOB is an important no-no. So that's why I'm doing what any good politician would do, and that's to say both are correct. If there's any doubt the player is being a part of the throw-in play, it works for me. If there's no doubt the player is just trying to gain the advantage of going around the screen and not be a part of the throw-in, then that's what the committee is trying to address.

1) This situation isn't really relevant to what we're discussing. It is a very valid question though. We discussed it in another thread a while ago. The consensus was that we really don't know how to handle defensive violations that will take away an offensive advantage in some cases. We do need direction from the NFHS to handle some situations like the one you described above.
2)Closest OOB spot to where the ball was when the infraction occurred.

Comments on the 2005-06 Rules Revisions, Release Date: 5/10/05, NFHS website.

Ok, they don't carry the same weight as the rules and casebook, but it gives us an idea of what the rules committee is trying to address. And the one play that is addressed, that they say is an unauthorized leaving of the court, is going OOB to avoid or go around a screen.
[/B][/QUOTE]Going OOB during normal play and spot throw-ins to gain an advantage is unauthorized. There's rules against it. Going OOB on the same line during a teammate's non designated spot throw-in is always authorized. There are no rules against doing so.

Ever get the feeling that we're going around in circles now?

I only read the first couple posts to this thread and then quit because I did not want to give myself a headache. This play is a no brainer. No one on Team A has done anything illegal. Team A is allowed to have all five players on the out-of-bounds side of the endline. They can do anything they want on that side of the endline as long as they effect a legal throw-in. Do not confuse the new rule change with something that was legal last year and is still legal this year. Chuck's play is legal under NFHS, NCAA, FIBA, and NBA/WNBA rules. Actually, I am pretty sure the play would be legal under NBA/WNBA rules; if I am wrong I am sure somebody will correct me and I will accept the correction with heart felt thanks.

MTD, Sr.

Your taking a case for one situation and applying it to a different, unrelated one. There is no rule disallowing getting around a screen...the rule basically disallows being OOB when there is no authorized reason to be OOB. A teammate of the thrower being OOB along the endline during such a throwin is specifically. It doesn't say he has to intend on receiving the pass.

no right answer
 

Would it be a copout to take the position that there is no correct answer to this question? This appears to me to be a glitch that can have a persuasive argument for either side. This will require an expansion of 9-3-2 in the future to address this specific tiny part of the possible application of this rule. (the above mentioned expansion also keeps alive the requirement that officials buy a new rulebook each year) In the meantime my scale tips overwhelmingly to the side that when a no-call might be as good as a call, the no-call is the way to go. Combine this with the fact that many people, coaches included, did not know about this rule in the first place, and the fact that I have never seen such a screen on a made basket out of bounds play, I don't see myself ever making the call. That is my opinion. Please, nobody egg my house.

Absolutely.

http://ballroomparkrose.com/accessda...ectory_683.jpg

You added the part in red to the comment; that's where we disagree. I took the comment as written, without adding anything to it.

Again, you added the word "always" to the rule.

Now, like Chuck said, where we disagree is which rule or comment trumps the other, or if they might even co-exist. Right now, I'm leaning towards the side that says just going OOB to avoid the screen is unauthorized, period. As far as when to call it, we can make it a delayed violation, kind of like calling the free throw violation on the defense. We can see the player go out, delay our whistle to see if they are a part of the throw-in play, then ignore it if so.

But one thing I know for sure, those high heels look REAL good on you, JR. ;)

LEAVING COURT FOR <font color = red>UNAUTHORIZED</font> 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. <font color = red>Leaving the court during the course of play</font> 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.

That phrase in the comments is ambiguous to me. Certainly it could be interpreted to cover all live ball situations, but could they have meant only a live inbounds ball, knowing that throw-in provisions and rules are already in place?

My opinion has not been swayed.

I just now have taken the time to read the entire thread, and I would like to thank Dan and Camron for doing a yeoman's job of defending my position. Thanks guys.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, if I knew it was your position I would have kept my mouth shut.

Have you ever been called a yeoman before, Dan? I'm not sure I'd take that from him.

What would be the proper retaliation for being called a yeoman?

When someone says, "yeoman" to me, I usually give a little head nod and reply, "'sup".