Legally leaving the court....

[ronny mulkey]

A1 is sprinting toward the sideline and toward his goal (15 to 20 degree angle) to save a ball from going out of bounds. His momentum has him leaving the court at the beginning of their bench, whereupon he straightens out his angle which has him heading toward his goal but still out of bounds. They return 15 feet later/closer to his goal and 1. he picks up the ball or 2. his teammate picks up the ball. Is this a tech? violation? legal play?

To save all the "had to be there to see it" discussion, please change the play to the way that you saw it.

Mulk

[truerookie]

Once, he straightens out and does not immediately return to the floor. Violation

[RoyalsCoach]

I don't have my books with me but I don't think having your momentum take you out of bounds constitues leaving the court illegally. It must be intentional to gain an advantage. Isn't there a specfic case book that covers this? You can go OB and still be the first to come in and touch the ball. As far as staying out of bounds too long and not immediately coming back on the court I believe is a technical foul. I would have to see this play. 15 feet is only 3 running steps and it seems harsh to T somebody for a hustle play that was only one or two extra steps OB.

[South GA BBall Ref]

Mulk: I don't have my books at the office with me either, but by rule it is either a violation or legal. Without further references, I'm gonna have to go with Royal on this one. BTW, how did/would you handle it?

[ronny mulkey]

Dre',

We have been discussing this play. He left legally and his momentum carried him at least some of the way toward his goal. But, would you let him return to the court 15 ft. (10 ft., 12 ft., not more than 2 strides) from the point where he left the court if he or his teammate got the ball? Would it be a no call if the other team got the ball?

It seems like he is gaining an advantage by returning 15 ft. from the point of exit if he or his team gets the ball.

Mulk

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
To save all the "had to be there to see it" discussion, please change the play to the way that you saw it.

Originally posted by RoyalsCoach
I would have to see this play.

My teachers always told me to read ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS before answering any question on the exam.

[M&M Guy]

The rule isn't difficult; intent is a major part of your interpretation. The specific example given of unauthorized leaving is the player coming up to a screen along a sideline or baseline, then choosing the "easy" way around the screen by running OOB intead of taking the longer way around the screen in-bounds. The committee's comment when this came out was the issue of keeping the play "on the court" and not "expanding" the playing area. I believe they also made the comment that momentum carrying a player OOB trying to make a play such as saving a ball from going OOB is not considered unauthorized. So, in ronny's case of the player saving the ball, this would be legal.

As far as returning to the court "immediately", again think interms of intent. I've seen this example before: player A1 has a spot throw-in along the baseline in the frontcourt. A1 throws it to A2, then A1 runs along the endline OOB and comes in on the other side of the lane while his teammates screen off his defender. A1 then steps inbounds on the other side of the lane, receives the pass back from A2 and has a relatively easy layup. See the intent? However, let's say A1 falls OOB while saving the ball, and plops right down on top of a small kid sitting in the front row. A1 gets up, checks with the kid to make sure he's alright, and says sorry to the parent sitting next to the kid. Are you going to give A1 the T for not returning to the floor "immediately"? I sure hope not. There's obviously no intent to deceive. So, back to ronny's question: if A1 saved the ball, and in the opinion of the official came back on the court after normal movement as a result of the momentum that carried him out in the first place, then no penalty. If A1 saves the ball, runs along the bench OOB and high-fives a couple of his teammates, and then comes in on the other side of a screen to get the ball, then that's an easy T. Your judgement - was it normal momentum for that play, or did the player use some extra OOB time to gain an advantage?

[ronny mulkey]

M,

If you ruled intent, would it be a violation or a technical?
No call if he or his team did not get the ball?

Mulk

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
M,

If you ruled intent, would it be a violation or a technical?
No call if he or his team did not get the ball?

Mulk

Unauthorized leaving of the court is a violation, called immediately.

Failure to return to the court is a technical. There's nothing in the rules that says if they didn't get the ball, it's not a T, but that could be part of your decision on advantage/disadvantage. If the other team gets the ball and is going the other way, what advantage did A gain? IMO, this is one of those calls that should be obvious to everyone (or at least to whoever might watch the tape of the game). If there's any doubt, lean towards a no-call.

[Camron Rust]

I've got no call.

Player left court legally and, after gaining control of his momentum, immediately took an angled course back towards the court. I've read nothing that requires tha course to be a 90 degree angle to the boundary line.

[tmp44]

Advantage/Disadvantage. If, in your humble opinion and judgment, the player gained an unfair advantage, bang the violation.

[blindzebra]

Actually what you are suggesting would not be the violation under the new rule, but a T for delaying the return after legally being OOB.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
I've got no call.

Player left court legally and, after gaining control of his momentum, immediately took an angled course back towards the court. I've read nothing that requires tha course to be a 90 degree angle to the boundary line.

Camron,

I don't think that you will find 90 degrees but, you have read that the player must return immediately. And, you have read that "a tremendous advantage is gained by allowing a team or player more space than allowed". That really is the crux of this discussion. The way you described the play, the player returned immediately? Could you ever imagine or visualize a player's momentum carrying him 15 ft.? How about 10 ft.? Several principles expect a player without the ball to adjust a path in "no more than 2 strides".

Mulk

[Ref Daddy]

ART. 3 . . . Leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Ref Daddy
ART. 3 . . . Leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

That is the old rule and it split.

Unauthorized is a violation, delay is a T.