An actual rules question, for a change

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Yabut......there are "conditions" in R9-3-2. The condition is that to have a violation, the player must go OOB for an unauthorized reason. There are no unuathorized reasons listed anywhere in the rules that I know of. That's why we're asking somebody to cite such a rule if they know one. A player going OOB for an authorized or legal reason just doesn't meet the primary condition of R9-3-2.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 19th, 2005 at 05:30 PM]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by myheadhurts

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?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
[/B]

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
This is a discussion that started on another website. I'm looking for some input here. I already know JR's opinion, so hold off for a while, JR.

B1 scores. While A1 is holding the ball OOB for the endline throw-in, A2 sets a screen near the endline. A3 runs OOB along the endline to go around the screen and re-enters the court inbounds. Is this a violation under new rule 9-3-2? Or is it legal b/c it's an endline throw-in and any teammate of the thrower can be OOB?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

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

Remember, we aren't talking about not allowing anyone to no longer go OOB, but just what consitutes "unauthorized". Obviously, any member of the throw-in team is authorized to be OOB during a throw-in after a basket. However, this specific example of going around a screen is mentioned as unauthorized. Neither example says the other one doesn't apply. So, I guess I can also ask: what rule do you use to back up allowing a player to go OOB to avoid the screen?

Even though there have been multiple rules mentioned, the only one that applies to teammates being OOB on a throw-in is 7-5-7. The context of this rule is the throw-in after a made basket, and what is allowed. The purpose is to allow teammate(s) to be OOB to receive a pass (or fake receiving a pass, or jump up and down and yelling, "throw it here!!", whatever). However, using OOB to get around a screen is also specifically disallowed. The two are not mutually exclusive; they can both be in effect. Granted, they need to figure out how you call it if you can't determine the intent of the player - avoiding the screen or completing the throw-in play.

I guess what it boils down to realistically, unless it's obvious the player is just avoiding the screen, I will assume it's part of the OOB throw-in play.

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Ever get the feeling that we're going around in circles now?

Absolutely.

Going OOB during normal play and spot throw-ins to gain an advantage is unauthorized. There's rules against it.

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.

Going OOB on the same line during a teammate's non designated spot throw-in is always authorized.

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.

[Ref in PA]

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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by just another ref
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".