IMO, my example would not apply to section 3 nor to any section years ago.

If you dribble and bounce the ball, leave the court and return to bounce the ball, it would fall under 9-3-2 of this years rule changes, violation instead of a techincal.

Please tell me you're kidding, Camron. You really wouldn't call anything on a player for his momentum taking him OOB after making a <b>legal</b> play of any kind- pass, shot, save, whatever...would you? Would you make the same call on a player that jumped over a boundary line trying to save a bad pass from going OOB, threw the ball back inbounds while being airborne, and then landed OOB? Just about the same thing, isn't it? [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that I would call it but for the discussion it is clearly not the same. The player in this case is choosing to make a play that involves going OOB. They are NOT trying to get to a bad pass that ends up taking them OOB as a consequence.

This player could have not made this pass if he didn't plan on going OOB after releasing it. Purposefully eaving the court in order to create a better pass is not authorized anymore then leaving the court to get open (through a screen) to receive the pass.

Section 3 and 9 did apply to your case. A dribbler leaving the court during the dribble has been a violation all along.

What about????
 

The ball is bounding towards the OOB area off of A1.

A1 rushes to save the ball... he's not going to make it. B1 follows along behind A1.

The ball is in the air as A1 grabs it and flies toward the OOB area. B1 stops short of OOB.

A1, who is going to land OOB, turns and throws the ball into B1.

The ball bounds off of B1 and touches OOB.

A1 lands OOB.

Who violated - B1 first and then A1? or just A1 because he knew that he would land OOB and intended to do so?

We would all call this off of B1 and give the ball to Team A. Wouldn't we?

I think that has got to be our answer, then - the offense can intentionally jump out of bounds with the ball and pass back onto the court.

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has not always been a violation all along.

Rule 9-9 does not apply to my example.

Rule 9-3 did not apply to my example years ago, as responded previously.

It applies today as a violation but was a technical last year.

I'm not sure that I would call it but for the discussion it is clearly not the same. The player in this case is choosing to make a play that involves going OOB. They are NOT trying to get to a bad pass that ends up taking them OOB as a consequence.

[/B][/QUOTE]What exactly is the difference? :confused: In both cases, isn't the player <b>deliberately</b> choosing to make a play that will involve them eventually ending up OOB- whether it's making a pass or saving the ball? In both plays, didn't the player still make the play while still having in-bounds stratus?

How about this play? A dribbler coming right down down a side line is suddenly cut off by a defender who sets up with LGP and his outside foot right by the line. To avoid committing the charge, the dribbler grabs the ball, jumps sideways OOB and then loops a pass back in-bounds to a teammate? Would you call that a violation on the dribbler also?

What about a player that calls a TO in mid-air OOB while trying to save a ball? Ignore it and call a violation under the same rationale?

What about an airborne OOB player saving a ball and tossing it back in-bounds off an opponent to get a violation? He's getting an advantage by going OOB on that kinda play too, isn't he?

All of those are deliberate plays by a player choosing to go OOB to make some kinda play with the ball before he lands OOB. Why would only one of them be a violation? Or would you call all of them a violation?

Re: What about????
 

While jumping from within the court boundary and then going airborne, A1 legally made the attempted save and threw the ball off of B1.

No violation on A1, possession Team A.

Yeah, what he said.
 

Oh wait. I already said some of what he said. Well not completely. Bob had more examples. He's always that way - thorough.;)

Well, if going oob to avoid a screen is a violation, and going oob to try and end a 3 second count is a violation, why isn't going oob to avoid commiting a foul? I think this one is pretty clearly a violation.

How about a succussful try made while flying OOB? Let's make it a game winner, final shot as the buzzer goes off.

Perhaps the rule ought to say something about without the ball or any action concerning the ball, violation.

You'd really call a violation on that play?

On the other examples too?

The other's are variations on the going oob to save the ball. No, I wouldn't call a violation on those. Of course, I'd grant the timeout.

For the life of me, I honestly can't see any difference between any of those plays.

Guess we just got agree to disagree.

No worries. Aspirin and egg nog? :)

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has not always been a violation all along.

Rule 9-9 does not apply to my example.

Rule 9-3 did not apply to my example years ago, as responded previously.

It applies today as a violation but was a technical last year.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Repeating the same error again does not make it true. A dribbler (or any player in control of the ball) stepping OOB is not leaving the court for and unauthorized reason and any rule change related to leaving the court is not relevant to this situation. If a dribbler stepped OOB for any reason in the past, it was an immediate violation of 9-3 for causing the ball to go OOB. It was NEVER a technical foul. It's been that way for a very long time. (A clarification was added some years back for those that didn't understand it.) Perhaps a few decades ago it was not a violation but not in modern history.