The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 12:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally posted by just another ref
Look at it this way. The guy threw his pass while legally inbounds and just happened to land out of bounds. Assuming he immediately come back in, no violation. Going out of bounds was not a part of his play, just an incidental after-effect. The violation occurs when a player deliberately runs out of bounds for a reason, such as running around a screen.
Just happened to land out of bounds? Just an incidental after-effect? Going out of bounds was not part of the play? Please! It was an essential part of the play. His intent was to make a pass around the defense using the out of bounds area. The only way to do that was to jump out of bounds. D E L I B E R A T E L Y !
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 12:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Just happened to land out of bounds? Just an incidental after-effect? Going out of bounds was not part of the play? Please! The only way to do that was to jump out of bounds. D E L I B E R A T E L Y !
Ok, how is that different than the player that saves the ball from going OOB, then goes out himself?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 01:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Re: mechanic

Quote:
Originally posted by Blind & lovin' it

I have yet to call this one as a violation, what is the mechanic for intentionally running out of bounds to avoid a screen?
Blow the whiste, raise on open hand, point the direction, announce the color.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 02:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 47
Re: Re: mechanic

Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Blind & lovin' it

I have yet to call this one as a violation, what is the mechanic for intentionally running out of bounds to avoid a screen?
Blow the whiste, raise on open hand, point the direction, announce the color.
So nothing special.
__________________
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but what you fail to realize is that what you heard is not really what I meant.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 02:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Just happened to land out of bounds? Just an incidental after-effect? Going out of bounds was not part of the play? Please! The only way to do that was to jump out of bounds. D E L I B E R A T E L Y !
Ok, how is that different than the player that saves the ball from going OOB, then goes out himself?
There are three differences: the player's intent, the nature of the play being attempted and the changing nature of the game.

When saving the ball, the player's intent is to keep the ball in play when it would obviously otherwise go oob and create a violation. It's a last-ditch effort, a reactionary behavior. He's got nothing to lose, no other choice.

In the case of the pass, he's not reacting to an existing play gone bad, trying to prevent a violation and turnover, he's initiating a new play. And his intent is to do it outside the boundaries of the court. Being beyond the boundary line, as far as possible, is essential to the play's success.

There's also a difference in the nature of the play being made. Saving the ball is an accepted, time-honored part of the game. It's a play we want to preserve.

Contrast that with this pass play. It's more of a rarely seen, trick play. It's certainly not a part of the accepted "playbook" the way saving the ball is. This play is neither deserving nor undeserving of preservation. It should be judged on it merits and discarded if it doesn't pass contemporary muster.

It's been suggested that A1's defender could just as easily jump oob to follow A1 and keep playing defense. Does anybody consider that good defense? Does anybody teach that? At best it's pretty desperate defense. Good defense against the pass is for the receiver's guard to stay between the ball and the receiver. That's rather difficult to do if the ball is beyond the boundary of the court and you're not allowed to go there.

What are kids taught about defending along a boundary line? The boundary is the sixth man. Trap your opponent against the line. The offense can't go any farther than the line. While the defense used to be taught to put one foot on the line, with this new emphasis on playing the game inbounds, they've got to worry about keeping both feet within the lines. We've created a situation where the defense is more conscious than ever before about having to stay in-bounds.

This year's adjustment in this on-going effort is to emphasize the offense playing within the boundaries too. And that's why I think we need to rethink this play. While it was undoubtedly legal in the past, I feel that now it gives the offense an unintended advantage: the opportunity to initiate plays using the space beyond the boundary where nobody is supposed to be playing. It's an advantage that could reasonably be eliminated using this year's most recent rule change.

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Dec 22nd, 2005 at 02:58 PM]
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 03:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 270
Re: Re: Re: mechanic

Quote:
Originally posted by Blind & lovin' it
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Blind & lovin' it

I have yet to call this one as a violation, what is the mechanic for intentionally running out of bounds to avoid a screen?
Blow the whiste, raise on open hand, point the direction, announce the color.
So nothing special.
LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON (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.

----------------------------------------------------------

This violation does not only occur by the offense for going around a screen but can happen when an offensive player goes out of bounds to avoid good defense or to use players as a shield while trying to avoid detection by the defense, whether in single or zone defensive coverage’s.

The violation can be called on the defense when a defender runs out of bounds to avoid the screen and the defender is able to make a play; stealing the ball, blocking a shot, etc.

Take notice when the defender may violate on purpose, such as on a fast break, by stepping out of bounds to prevent the offense from scoring.

If necessary, you should call a Player Technical (10-3-7) or (10-3-6) on the defender for such behavior.

Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 03:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Ok BITS, I cringed a little when I asked the question, because I knew where you were going. But I think you might be over-thinking this a little. In the original play, and most of the variations, the actual "play" is legal, as per the rule that states the status of the ball and player are where they were when they last touched. The resulting action (momentum) takes the player OOB. There is no difference between the player falling OOB to save the ball and the player making the pass; both know they are going OOB, deliberately. In fact, aren't both players making a pass? You have just added requirements about intent vs. "an accepted, time-honored part of the game". I didn't see that distinction made in the rule book, case book, or any of the comments made by the NF. The only play specifically mentioned was the player going around a screen OOB. This example is a completely voluntary, under-control move. Also, the NF didn't expand on the play regarding the defense standing with one foot OOB; it didn't become an immediate violation, but it has been left with the ruling that if there's contact it cannot be a charge.

So until we get more examples of the Fed's intent, I will be content to just call the examples as mentioned in the rules, casebook, and comments. Let's not try to over-think things. I know when I do, I get a headache!
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 03:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Just happened to land out of bounds? Just an incidental after-effect? Going out of bounds was not part of the play? Please! The only way to do that was to jump out of bounds. D E L I B E R A T E L Y !
Ok, how is that different than the player that saves the ball from going OOB, then goes out himself?
There are three differences: the player's intent, the nature of the play being attempted and the changing nature of the game.

When saving the ball, the player's intent is to keep the ball in play when it would obviously otherwise go oob and create a violation. It's a last-ditch effort, a reactionary behavior. He's got nothing to lose, no other choice.

In the case of the pass, he's not reacting to an existing play gone bad, trying to prevent a violation and turnover, he's initiating a new play. And his intent is to do it outside the boundaries of the court. Being beyond the boundary line, as far as possible, is essential to the play's success.

There's also a difference in the nature of the play being made. Saving the ball is an accepted, time-honored part of the game. It's a play we want to preserve.

Contrast that with this pass play. It's more of a rarely seen, trick play. It's certainly not a part of the accepted "playbook" the way saving the ball is. This play is neither deserving nor undeserving of preservation. It should be judged on it merits and discarded if it doesn't pass contemporary muster.

It's been suggested that A1's defender could just as easily jump oob to follow A1 and keep playing defense. Does anybody consider that good defense? Does anybody teach that? At best it's pretty desperate defense. Good defense against the pass is for the receiver's guard to stay between the ball and the receiver. That's rather difficult to do if the ball is beyond the boundary of the court and you're not allowed to go there.

What are kids taught about defending along a boundary line? The boundary is the sixth man. Trap your opponent against the line. The offense can't go any farther than the line. While the defense used to be taught to put one foot on the line, with this new emphasis on playing the game inbounds, they've got to worry about keeping both feet within the lines. We've created a situation where the defense is more conscious than ever before about having to stay in-bounds.

This year's adjustment in this on-going effort is to emphasize the offense playing within the boundaries too. And that's why I think we need to rethink this play. While it was undoubtedly legal in the past, I feel that now it gives the offense an unintended advantage: the opportunity to initiate plays using the space beyond the boundary where nobody is supposed to be playing. It's an advantage that could reasonably be eliminated using this year's most recent rule change.

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Dec 22nd, 2005 at 02:58 PM]
You posted a very good reply.

I am still bewildered as to why this violation is so difficult to comprehend and to implement.



Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 04:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
Ok BITS, I cringed a little when I asked the question, because I knew where you were going. But I think you might be over-thinking this a little. In the original play, and most of the variations, the actual "play" is legal, as per the rule that states the status of the ball and player are where they were when they last touched. The resulting action (momentum) takes the player OOB. There is no difference between the player falling OOB to save the ball and the player making the pass; both know they are going OOB, deliberately. In fact, aren't both players making a pass? You have just added requirements about intent vs. "an accepted, time-honored part of the game". I didn't see that distinction made in the rule book, case book, or any of the comments made by the NF. The only play specifically mentioned was the player going around a screen OOB. This example is a completely voluntary, under-control move. Also, the NF didn't expand on the play regarding the defense standing with one foot OOB; it didn't become an immediate violation, but it has been left with the ruling that if there's contact it cannot be a charge.

So until we get more examples of the Fed's intent, I will be content to just call the examples as mentioned in the rules, casebook, and comments. Let's not try to over-think things. I know when I do, I get a headache!
So if an offensive player just runs out of bounds without running around a screen, you won't call this act a violation?

You have to credit good defense if the offense violates by utilizing the out of bounds to gain an advantage.

The example by the NFHS was a "typical" example and not the one and only.

I can create many examples where this violation can be applied, such as A1 dribbles along the sideline, then bouncing the ball between B1's legs, leaves the court going around B1 and continuing his/her dribble.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 04:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
Ok BITS, I cringed a little when I asked the question, because I knew where you were going. But I think you might be over-thinking this a little. In the original play, and most of the variations, the actual "play" is legal, as per the rule that states the status of the ball and player are where they were when they last touched. The resulting action (momentum) takes the player OOB. There is no difference between the player falling OOB to save the ball and the player making the pass; both know they are going OOB, deliberately. In fact, aren't both players making a pass? You have just added requirements about intent vs. "an accepted, time-honored part of the game". I didn't see that distinction made in the rule book, case book, or any of the comments made by the NF. The only play specifically mentioned was the player going around a screen OOB. This example is a completely voluntary, under-control move. Also, the NF didn't expand on the play regarding the defense standing with one foot OOB; it didn't become an immediate violation, but it has been left with the ruling that if there's contact it cannot be a charge.

So until we get more examples of the Fed's intent, I will be content to just call the examples as mentioned in the rules, casebook, and comments. Let's not try to over-think things. I know when I do, I get a headache!
Me, overthink things? Never happens

Actually, I think somebody will probably be by shortly to point out that the foot on the line merely denies legal guarding position, the play can still be a charge. But that's beside the point.

I see your point about both plays being passes. I hadn't thought about it that way.

As long as I'm overthinking this pig, let's use the criteria you mention: "completely voluntary, under-control move." And let's throw in all three plays: saving the ball, making the pass and going around the screen. It seems to me that they are part of a continuum rather than discreet categories.

Saving a ball is least voluntary, most reactionary. The screen play is certainly voluntary, but has an element of reaction to it too. The play wasn't designed to send him oob, circumstances conspired to make it the best option to complete the play. The pass is the most voluntary. The passer has complete freedom to choose if he will do it, where he will do it and when he will do it. He can chose to pull back and initiate a different play entirely.

BTW, the pass is the only one of the three plays that's designed to go out of bounds.

Under control is an interesting criteria. I think we can agree that saving the ball is the least under-control. The saver is at the mercy of where the ball is heading, and once he leaves the ground he cannot control his motion. Running around the screen is a pretty under-control move. You've got your feet on the ground and can turn, cut, stop. The Passer, however, is in the middle. True, he cannot control his motion much once he leaves the ground, but he can choose when, where and if to jump, which gives him a large measure of control.

If we wanted to assign some kind of score based on these criteria, 1 to 3 here's how I think it would turn out.

Voluntary
Saving the ball - 1
The screen - 2
The pass - 3

Under-control
Saving the ball - 1
The pass - 2
The screen -3

Total that up and you get
Saving the ball - 2
The screen - 5
The pass - 5

Hmmmm. Now where did I put that aspirin?
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 04:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally posted by johnny1784


I can create many examples where this violation can be applied, such as A1 dribbles along the sideline, then bouncing the ball between B1's legs, leaves the court going around B1 and continuing his/her dribble.
That's been a violation for years; it has nothing to do with the rule change.

Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 05:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by johnny1784


I can create many examples where this violation can be applied, such as A1 dribbles along the sideline, then bouncing the ball between B1's legs, leaves the court going around B1 and continuing his/her dribble.
That's been a violation for years; it has nothing to do with the rule change.

What number does this violation correspond with?

It was a Technical before this years change.

If this violation was not a rule, then it would be legal to leave the court and resume a dribble if the player had established back on to the court before touching.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 05:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally posted by johnny1784
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by johnny1784


I can create many examples where this violation can be applied, such as A1 dribbles along the sideline, then bouncing the ball between B1's legs, leaves the court going around B1 and continuing his/her dribble.
That's been a violation for years; it has nothing to do with the rule change.

What number does this violation correspond with?

It was a Technical before this years change.

If this violation was not a rule, then it would be legal to leave the court and resume a dribble if the player had established back on to the court before touching.
SECTION 3 OUT OF BOUNDS
A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds.
NOTE: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 05:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Me, overthink things? Never happens

Actually, I think somebody will probably be by shortly to point out that the foot on the line merely denies legal guarding position, the play can still be a charge. But that's beside the point.
Actually, I'm thinking that is a good point. The player is OOB, even using my made-up criteria of being under control. But's it not listed as a violation, it's just a situation where there is no LGP. How come?

Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
If we wanted to assign some kind of score based on these criteria, 1 to 3 here's how I think it would turn out.

Voluntary
Saving the ball - 1
The screen - 2
The pass - 3

Under-control
Saving the ball - 1
The pass - 2
The screen -3

Total that up and you get
Saving the ball - 2
The screen - 5
The pass - 5
Can we give bonus points, or deduct points based on the coach's rules knowledge so far in the game?

Ok, maybe my "under control" criteria doesn't quite fit. I could be over-thinking how to explain it. Perhaps another way is to think in terms of advantage/disadvantage for the player OOB. The player falling OOB to pass the ball to a teammate (maybe saving it in the process), is not in an advantageous position anymore until they get back in. However, someone who uses OOB territory to wipe off a defender around a screen is gaining an obvious advantage. And, the advantage is gained by being OOB, not ending up there.

Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Hmmmm. Now where did I put that aspirin?
Don't forget to save some for the rest of us. But do wash it down with some good egg nog.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 22, 2005, 05:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
I think we should be able to, but I don't enjoy math when large, negative numbers are involved

Too true. In both the save and the pass, the player takes himself out of the play entirely. That has to balance out the advantage to some degree. In fact, the nature of that pass is such that it's likely to leave the passer farther from the play than the save (which often is either a relatively short pass, or a lob to give somebody time to get under it and the player to get back inbounds).

By going around the screen, the offender may well put himself in a position for an easy, open score. That would be using one illegal advantage to create a further advantage.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1