Per rule, would you be technically justified in calling a violation on A1 for falling OOB after a shot/save? Yes.

Under the old penalty, how often was a T called for leaving to go around a screen? Pretty infrequently, but you heard occasional stories (usually involving running off the court, into the hallway, and back onto the court at a different point) of a T being assessed.

Now, how many of you have called/heard of a T being called for landing OOB after a save, after diving for a loose ball, or after a long shot? Probably never. The rule and its intent haven't changed - just the penalty has. I'm not calling any of these theoretical situations a violation, and I'd probably be laughed out of my association if I did.

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.) <font color = red>Perhaps a few decades ago it was not a violation but not in modern history.</font>
[/B][/QUOTE]It was the same violation a few decades ago too.

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.
[/B][/QUOTE]


I feel you are incorrectly using rule 9-3 and its articles.

If the dribbler does step out of bounce to gain an advantage, yes it is a violation.

Post a copy from our NFHS books, either this years or a decade ago of a case or rule that illustrates your belief.

I would not call a violation on A1.

IMO, it was never called a technical because just like the revision for a violation, most of our officials do not understand the rule nor with the old version, did an official have the guts to call a technical if a player clearly ran off the court to gain an advantage on the play.

You would sometimes hear that old gutless reply, "I wouldn’t call that if I were you"... "You’re asking for trouble".

I feel you are incorrectly using rule 9-3 and its articles.

If the dribbler does step out of bounce to gain an advantage, yes it is a violation.

Post a copy from our NFHS books, either this years or a decade ago of a case or rule that illustrates your belief.

[/B][/QUOTE]

From last year and this year:
"9-3 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."

Is the player a dribbler? Yes. Did they step OOB? Yes. Violation.

From last year and this year:
"9-3 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."

Is the player a dribbler? Yes. Did they step OOB? Yes. Violation.

[/B][/QUOTE]

You posted; <b>“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.”</b>

My example was player A1 in bounds has dribble, passes ball thru defenders legs, goes out of bounds, returns onto court and continues to dribble. Violation 9-3-2.

Lat year, the above violation 9-3-2 was called a techincal.

If A1 has the dribble on the court, continues their dribble while touching the boundary line, violation even though during his/her dribble while being out of bounds the ball was not touching, it is said to have caused it to be out of bounds. Violation 9-3-1.

My example was player A1 in bounds has dribble, passes ball thru defenders legs, goes out of bounds, returns onto court and continues to dribble. Violation 9-3-2.

Lat year, the above violation 9-3-2 was called a techincal.

If A1 has the dribble on the court, continues their dribble while touching the boundary line, violation even though during his/her dribble while being out of bounds the ball was not touching, it is said to have caused it to be out of bounds. Violation 9-3-1.


[/B][/QUOTE]

Sigh.

No, johnny, it wasn't.

Last year, there was no 9-3-2, there was only a 9-3. It's the same as this year's 9-3-1, plus the NOTE that Camron posted above. This year, they added the part about a player (not the dribbler) going OOB and returning. Since they added a part, they had to renumber it to 9-3-1 (the old rule) and 9-3-2. They left the note.

You asked for some history, so I found this in the '97-'98 book (I can't find the earlier books): You'll note that this is essentially the same as today's comment.

At one point, this was true even of an interrupted dribble. The rule was changed to make it *not* apply in that case.