------------------------------
|
| A1
|
|
|
|-------------
|
|
|
|-------------
|
|
|
|
| A2
-----------------------------

the new rule going out of bounds to gain an advantage--violation. I had this play 4-5 times tithin the last two-three years. A1 dribbles to the baseline jumps at the baseline and is he/she above the out of bounds betond the endline.. A1 has not touched out of bounds yet.. A1 passes the ball to A2 for a three point try. Usually this happens in the latter part of the game.

the intent of the rule is to keep the players between the endlines and sidelines to play the game. So if A1 is guarded and B1 steps out of bounds to stop the pass, Has B1 violated?? If B1 does not follow A1, did A1 gain an advantage to pass the ball to A2 using the out of bounds as wauy to pass the ball??

I asked our interpreter, he said that he believes that it is legal since A1 status is still in bounds. I asked the state interpreter and another interpreter...they both agreed that the intent of the rule is to keep the players from intentionally gaining an advantage with the out of bounds. If B1 stepped out of bounds to defend A1, B1 violated - A's ball at the point of the violation. If A1 gained the advantage since B1 is not allowed to go out of bounds without violating, then A1 could be gaining an advantage not expicitily stated. The state interpreter is finding out the ruling and has not got back to me. Any thoughts???

P.S. A coach in the local area asked me if it would be legal for him to do this play. I told him that I would let him know.

B1 can perform the exact same action as A1 while playing defense. B1 can leave the floor in-bounds and, while airborne, try to intercept/knock down the pass from A1 to A2 while it's in the air. Iow, A1 isn't gaining any kind of advantage at all because B1 can do the exact same thing that A1 is doing.

Perfectly legal play by players of both teams.

And what about once A1 touches the ground?

When coaching my team to trap the dribbler on the sideline, I and almost every other coach I have ever known tells their player to put a foot out of bounds so that the dribbler can't get by. The defender has 75% or more of their body over the court, but does have a foot on the line.

Is this now a violation on the defense that officials are looking to call? Please explain why or why not so I may better understand the intent?

If it is not a violation on the defense, would it be a violation on the dribbler who jumped from inbounds to out-of-bounds to avoid contact and passed in the air - and then immediately returned to the court?

No. The comments on this rule made it explicitly clear that this is not to apply. The casebook play covering this exact situation declares this a block (that is another debate). Given that it is a block, it can't possibly be a violation since the block can only occur if the ball remains live after the defender steps on the line.
I think you could have an aruguent for the dribbler purposefully leaping OOB even though they no longer had control of the ball when they land. I'd ask what authorized reason they have for being OOB.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

I think you could have an aruguent for the dribbler purposefully leaping OOB even though they no longer had control of the ball when they land. I'd ask what authorized reason they have for being OOB.

Let's assume the dribble is trying to avoid a charging foul and the only open spot is OB since the defense is trapping and set.

Thanks for the info!

Camron - I had an aruguent last night for dinner. It was served in a creamy garlic sauce and came with fresh asparagus and a nice salad. It was delicious. Since we don't work too far from each other, maybe we could meet for lunch and have aruguent sandwiches?

Defender putting a foot on the line or out of bounds gives up a "legal" guarding position and therefore is responsible for any subsequent contact, i.e., foul on the defense. With a foot in bounds, and in a legal guarding position, the responsibility for contact between the "legal" defender and offensive player rests with the offense.

The play you described with the offensive player leaving inbound, heading toward out of bounds,and passing the ball to a teamate appears to be perfectly legal - happens frequently when there is a loose ball-bad pass-fumble, etc. with the ball heading out of bounds, player jumps to save the ball and tips it back to a member of his/her own team.

I'm not calling this one.

I think you could have an argument for the dribbler purposefully leaping OOB even though they no longer had control of the ball when they land. I'd ask what authorized reason they have for being OOB. [/B][/QUOTE]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?

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]It's not the same thing; the intent is very different.

The guiding principle here is that the game is to be played within the boundaries of the court. Rules changes and guidance given by the NFHS over the past couple years makes this quite clear.

When a player goes oob to save a ball, his intent is to keep the play in-bounds; he is making an extraordinary attempt to remain within the letter and spirit of rules of the game.

Jumping out of bounds to then make a pass demonstrates clear intent to play the game outside the boundaries of the court. By jumping oob, A1 is all but guaranteed a clear passing lane. That's an advantage that I don't believe was intended by the rules committee.

It's not the same thing; the intent is very different.

<font color = red>The guiding principle here is that the game is to be played within the boundaries of the court.</font> Rules changes and guidance given by the NFHS over the past couple years makes this quite clear.

<font color = red>When a player goes oob to save a ball, his intent is to keep the play in-bounds; he is making an extraordinary attempt to remain within the letter and spirit of rules of the game.</font>

Jumping out of bounds to then make a pass demonstrates clear intent to play the game outside the boundaries of the court. <font color = red>By jumping oob, A1 is all but guaranteed a clear passing lane.</font> That's an advantage that I don't believe was intended by the rules committee. [/B][/QUOTE]Um, isn't the player who made that pass actually playing the game within the boundary of the court when he made the pass, as per rule 4-35-3?

And another um, when a player jumps OOB to make a pass, you're telling me that the player's intent isn't also to keep the play inbounds- same as saving a ball?

And the 3rd. um....when was A1 actually OOB when he made a pass?

Sorry, but I don't think I'm gonna buy any of those rationalizations. Maybe try citing a rule that will back up any kind of a violation call. I can't think of one.

Um, isn't the player who made that pass actually playing the game within the boundary of the court when he made the pass, as per rule 4-35-3?

And another um, when a player jumps OOB to make a pass, you're telling me that the player's intent isn't also to keep the play inbounds- same as saving a ball?

And the 3rd. um....when was A1 actually OOB when he made a pass?

Sorry, but I don't think I'm gonna buy any of those rationalizations. Maybe try citing a rule that will back up any kind of a violation call. I can't think of one. [/B][/QUOTE]Well, I don't have my book, so I can't give you the exact citation, but it's something like 9-2-2: Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is a violation. As soon as A1 touches oob he's left the court. The only real debate is whether he's left for an authorized or an unauthorized reason.

Let me address each of your three ums:

1. As you have pointed out, according to the rule at the time of the pass he is technically inbounds. Until he lands. And when he lands, the official has a decision to make. Was his leaving the court authorized or unauthorized? He certainly didn't request permission to leave the court, per 3-1-2. If you want to judge this strictly on the rules, I think you have to call this a violation. The rule says a player cannot leave the court for an unauthorized reason and clearly grants any player the right to "address an official to request...permission to leave the court," which this player failed to do. Now we both know that reality is not this pedantic.

While the player clearly has in-bounds status, whether he is playing the game within the boundaries of the court is another matter entirely. And it's a matter that I believe has a lot to do with whether the reason for leaving the court was authorized or not.

2. No, the intent is clearly not the same. In the case of saving a ball, the player is reacting; in the case of jumping oob to make the pass, he is initiating.

Saving the ball oob is an act of desperation to prevent a clearly impending violation. We rightly applaud this play because it smacks of extraordinary effort and personal heroics. A player puts himself at some amount of personal risk physically and at a competitive disadvantage all for the good of the team. We label that good hustle. It has long been an accepted part of the game and is clearly the poster child in the discussion about when a player may legally leave the court.

Jumping oob to make a pass around the defense is a conscious effort to advance a team's position by utilizing the space outside the boundary as a clear passing lane. There is a good reason this is a clear passing lane: the defense is not allowed to play out there. This play smacks of exploiting the rules and unintended advantage. It's not a widely accepted part of the game. It certainly wasn't mentioned by the NFHS as being acceptable play the way saving the ball was.

3. I'm not disputing 4-35-3.

It is abundantly clear to me that over the past 2-3 years the NFHS has consciously injected the notion of playing the game within the boundaries of the court into the rules and the philosophies behind them. They have stated it plainly in their own commentary.

The recent rule changes regarding the defender being on the oob line illustrate this. Why can the defender not have legal guarding position while touching the line? Because it is not legal to utilize the oob area to play defense. It puts the offense at a disadvantage.

The POE and rule change regarding leaving the court without authorization illustrate this too. Why can the offense not go oob to circumvent a screen? Because it is not legal to utilize the oob area to play offense. It puts the defense at a disadvantage.

This playing the game strictly within the boundaries of the court idea is a recent development that is slowly being explored by the rules committee and encoded into the rules. I believe we need to rethink this play in light of the new emphasis. I believe it violates the philosophy of maintaining balance by forcing both teams to play inbounds.

While the rules clearly say he's inbounds at the time of the pass, the kid can't stay in the air forever. And when he lands he has left the court. For an unauthorized reason.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Imo, the player left the floor for an <b>authorized</b> reason- as a direct result of making a legal basketball play. Personally, I'd never dream of calling that one. If you call that, you'd also have to call a violation on every player that went OOB in the air to save a bad pass. There's already case book plays extant that show that plays like that aren't a violation of 9-3-2.

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.

mechanic
 

I have yet to call this one as a violation, what is the mechanic for intentionally running out of bounds to avoid 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 !

Ok, how is that different than the player that saves the ball from going OOB, then goes out himself?

Re: mechanic
 

Blow the whiste, raise on open hand, point the direction, announce the color.

Re: Re: mechanic
 

So nothing special.

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]

Re: Re: Re: mechanic
 

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.

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! ;)

You posted a very good reply.

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

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.

Me, overthink things? Never happens :D

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?

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.

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?

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.

Don't forget to save some for the rest of us. But do wash it down with some good egg nog.

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.

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.

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.