Situation 10...
 

So, like Kelvin said, we wait to see the outcome of the basket to see if violation stands...Seems a little strange there...

Or, does A get the basket AND the ball back for the violation???

Thanks.
Joe

One or the other, basket good - nothing, basket not good - violation.

I think you misread the interpretation. Here it is again:

SITUATION 10: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3’s try is in flight. RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (9-3-2; 6-7-9 Exception d)

The ruling is to call B3 for the violation and give the ball to A for a throw-in. If it goes, count it. It says nothing about ignoring it if the shot goes in.

Do you really think that's the intent of the change?

IMO, the "warning, then T" rule is (primarily) for the person guarding the inbounder.

If it's another defensive player chasing a member of Team A other than the inbounder, I think the violation rule applies.

I really dunno to be quite honest. I certainly can see your point and it's a good 'un.

R9-2-11 is very specifically written up in the plural--i.e. "opponent(s)". I read that as covering <b>all</b> defensive players that go OOB during a throw-in, not just <b>a</b> defender contesting a throw-in. Iow, <b>any</b> defender going OOB during a throw-in leads to the team warning procedure instead of an immediate violation.

As for the intent of the new rule, according to the "COMMENTS ON THE RULES REVISIONS" on p.72, it looks like the FED wants to stop players from leaving the court for an unauthorized reason <b>during the course of play</b>. The question seems to be.....does the "course of play" include <b>all</b> live ball situations or just live ball/clock running situations? If the FED had meant it to include all live ball situations, I think that they would have re-written 9-2-11 to reflect that. That's jmo though.

Thoughts?

Hmmm
 

I think I'm going back towards my orginal thought.

Re: Hmmm
 

Fwiw, I'm sticking to my original answer.

That is assuming it happens on the throwin boundary. There are 3 other boundaries across which the defender could go OOB to get around a screen.

So we count the basket and then give the ball back to A?... I cant believe that's what they would want. Personally-I am not going there...

This makes the violation equal to a foul and pretty much the only violation that would do this... This is like calling BI or GT, scoring the basket, and then giving it back to A. what

I think the "swinging elbows" violation is the same.

I also think it's much ado about nothing. I don't recall passing on many Ts over the years because the offensive player went OOB, and I never remember the defensive player doing it in a manner to get noticed. NCAA has had a similar rule, and there haven't been any controversies (that I am aware of) regarding the defensive player.

Probably none of us has seen it in the past. But now that it's being talked about, I bet it gets much more common.

That's kin of scary though
 

That's what scares me. As Bob said earlier, I haven't seen it in my games or noticed it to be a problem; however, with an emphasis on it, I can see it being called by some of the officials and then me having to explain it the next time I'm at that gym.

On the play in question, what about if a player is forced OOB, does that count the same - should not, but I don't see that covered in the rule. Or did I miss it?

Thanks
David

Re: That's kin of scary though
 

On the play in question, what about if a player is forced OOB, does that count the same - should not, but I don't see that covered in the rule. Or did I miss it?

[/B][/QUOTE]If a player is forced out of bounds, you got nuthin'-- unless he delays returning inbounds.

The new rule- R9-3-2- sez that a player can't leave the floor for an <b>"unauthorized"</b> reason. Going OOB because you're forced out isn't an "unauthorized" reason. Ergo, this rule doesn't apply to a force-out.

Similary, R10-3-3 sez it's a T if you <b>delay</b> returning inbounds after <b>legally</b> being OOB. Iow, this rule doesn't apply on a force-out either if the player forced out comes right back in.

There is no force-out rule, not even in the NBA anymore. So if a player is forced out of bounds by an opponent, I think you have to call a foul.

Nevada, not all contact is a foul. You know that. If two players just collide, and one player goes OOB as a result of that collision, then you have a player who is <b>not</b> OOB for an <b>unauthorized</b> reason. The only thing governing that player's action now is the rules requisite that he now must return in-bounds asap. If he does so, then there is no call to be made.