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 have yet to read the actual wording in the new rule, but I'd say with the intent of the rule, this would be a violation. The player is clearly trying to gain an advantage by being oob.

I would think it would be "technically" illegal.

I do not know for sure, I currently do not have the new rulebook and casebook have a definitive answer. My first gut feeling is this is a violation. A3 went out of bounds to gain an advantage and should be penalized when A3 enters the court.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Sep 19th, 2005 at 09:40 AM]

A3 has the right by rule to be OOB. Perfectly legal IMO.

Dan, doesn't this violate the intent of the new rule? Also, I believe there's been an exception where running oob to get around a screen has been a violation for some time. I'd quote rules, but I don't have any books with me.

Legal in my book. There's no way to know whether she was getting around the screen, or preparing to receive a legal, albeit oob, pass.

It's an interesting question, Chuck? Did you see this happen?

The only case given in the book.
 

9-3-2 A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason. <B>Note:</B> The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, eventhough he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

9.3.2 Situation: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane. A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. <B>Ruling:</B> A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. [9-7 <I></I> Three Seconds]

Re: The only case given in the book.
 

It seems weird to me that this is the only case cited. The ones that we really see, aren't firmed up. How annoying.

I'm with Juulie on this one.

i would rule this an OOB violation. the rule book states that a "player" may not leave the court for an authorized reason. it does not specify whether the offense or defensive team is exempt from the rule. and since A3 is a player, he/she has just committed a vioaltion.

I don't think so. The rule change makes leaving the court for an unauthorized reason a violation instead of a T.

9-3-2 New, 10-3-3:
Changed the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to a violation from a technical foul.

In Chuck's case A3 is auhtorized to leave the court as he did.

After a basket, players on the inbounding team are authorized to go out of bounds, hence, not an unauthorized leaving of the court and not a violation.

I think you can tell the difference (the person who goes OOB to receive, or be a decoy on, a pass goes more-or-less perpendicular to the endline and reenters at more-or-less the same spot).

I concede that you could come up with a play where the official might not be able to tell -- and I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the offense.

But, if it's clear that the offense was just running OOB to clear a screen to get open, I'd have a violation.

Rule 9-2-3.

Rule 9-2-12.

Rule 7-5-7.

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.

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. [/B][/QUOTE]Rules citation?

Any member of the team throwing in is authorized unconditionally to be OOB behind the endline during a throw-in after points are earned.

You'll need to supply a rule backing up your claim.

The problem with this will come when the person with possession of the ball sees what's happening, and fakes passing the ball to her teammate (to make it look good) just as you blow the whistle. Now you've got some explaining to do!

Why do you have to blow your whistle right away? Why not wait and see the play develop. If the player goes around the screen and becomes involved in the action, you know they gained an advatage and can call the violation. I really don't see this being that difficult of a judgement call, unless the interpretations decide it is entirely legal, in which case it will be legal and there will be no call.

I don't think I really need a rules citation for that, do I? If A2 is legally OOB along the endline and is about to receive the ball from A1 who is also OOB, are you going to withhold the whistle when he excessively swings his elbows at B1 to make space to receive the ball?

No, if A1 needs to create space to recieve the ball I'll probably have a whistle on B1 for being OOB on the throw-in, which he is not allowed to do unconditionally by rule.

Even if B1 is not OOB, this rule states unconditionally that a player may not swing an elbow. IOW there are (or should be) no other considerations, we merely have to observe the swing of an elbow.

The rule we are discussing only penalizes players being OOB for an unauthorized purpose. IOW we must first ask ourselves "is he otherwise permitted to be OOB?".

In your play A3 is authorized to be OOB because he is permitted to do so by rule.

Now, if the rewritten rule did supercede the throw-in rule then no team mate would be allowed OOB with the player thowing the ball in. The rule as presented does say we are to whistle the violation immeditely. Which means as soon as you see it which means as soon as A3 steps OOB he's violated. Regardless of the throw-in rules.

Yes, it is not unreasonable for the the offensive team to set screen's where other teammates can go around them legally. The screen's should be set high enough to prevent a teammate from going OOB.

As I see it, during the normal course of a game if a player goes OOB unauthorized I am going to call a violation. I think the intent and focus here is, we have enough space between the boundary lines on the court for players to make adjustments and stay inbounds.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's just mucked up.
 

JR,
Well, of course, a player may legally go out of bounds to gain that intended legal right to receive and make an endline pass.
The new rule certainly *doesn't disallow* intended advantages. I figgered that went without saying.
mick

Yup, if you wanna supersede R's 9-2-2, 9-2-12 & 7-5-7 , you sureasheck are gonna need some rules citations to do so. There aren't any rules that I know of that sez that any teammate of the thrower <b>during</b> a non-spot throw-in can't go in and outa bounds as many times as he wants, or can't run up and down the same endline OOB as many times as he wants either. There are rules governing their behavior when it comes to taunting, fouling, and other <specific</b> things, but I'm not aware of any rule that sez they <b>can't</b> simply just be OOB at any time during the throw-in.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's just mucked up.
 

Thx for the clarification, Mick. I was a-misunderstanding you.

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.

Sorry, you (and also JR in his post above) missed my point. I was addressing only and specifically the fact that JR asked for a rules citation to back up my assertion that the player OOB can't do just anything he wants, simply b/c he's allowed to be in that situation. I don't need a citation to back up that assertion. There are restrictions on such a player, even tho they don't fall under the throw-in rules. That was my only point. He can't do just anything. What we're discussing is whether going around a screen falls under those restrictions or not.

How about R9-2-12? That one sez that no teammate of the thrower can legally be OOB during a <b>designated-spot</b> throw-in. If the FED had wanted this rule to apply to <b>all</b> throw-ins, they would have removed "designated-spot" from the language. They didn't. Ergo, it's legal for all teammates of the thrower to be OOB after a non-designated spot throw-in begins.

This is exactly right. The player is authorized to be OOB. The player is not authorized to go OOB to utilize a screen.

Which authorization supersedes?

...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.

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".