new rule

[iref4him]

------------------------------
|
| 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

And what about once A1 touches the ground?

[ATXCoach]

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ATXCoach
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?

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.

Originally posted by ATXCoach

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?

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.

[ATXCoach]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

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!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
I think you could have an aruguent

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?

[ditttoo]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]

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 legal 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?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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 legal 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

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 legal 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]

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. [/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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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. [/B]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
[/B][/QUOTE
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.

[/B]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Imo, the player left the floor for an authorized 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.

[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.

[Blind & lovin' it]

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.

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