Re: No Advantage
 

Hey, I already said that! :D

If you are referring to the NFHS Preseason guide, then no there is nothing in there which says to delay or temporarily ignore the violation.

In fact, just the opposite message is stressed.

There are five play rulings in that guide. In three of the play rulings (1,4,5) the wording "The official shall call a violation on XY as soon as XY steps out of bounds" appears. The violation is also called immediately in play 2 although that wording is not used in the ruling. Only play 3 is handled differently because that play is not a violation at all, it involves a technical foul for a player delaying his return to the court after making a throw-in.

There was something official somewhere that if A1 was on a fast break and had a clear path to the basket, and B1 stepped oob, to hold the violation call until A1's play was completed. I don't remember where it was, but it's out there. IIRC it didn't talk about advantage/disadvantage, but the concept was there, that B can't use the violation to take away an obvious advantage.

2005-06 NFHS Interp Situation 11 posted on the website, which Rut quoted back on the first page of this thread.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

Where is the rule that suggest what I said was wrong. I was not talking about a screen. I was talking about a player leaving the court in total confusion. Do you have a play reference or anything other than, "you are wrong?"

This play was more closely tied to the original question. Remember the original question. No one asked what happen when a player runs around on the baseline, they asked what would happen on a cluster f$%k where players are running on and off the court. That play fits the situation more than the new rule which does not address this play at all when you look at the website.

It is relevant to me. It is relevant because it is more closely tied to the original question. Once again, show me an interpretation that says this specific situation is just a violation and when you call the violation?

Well I do not recall that I asked you for what was relevant or not relevant. You are not the person that I have to answer to either way. It is relevant to me until I hear other wording that will change this situation.

I know this, we blame officials for when there are 4 players on the court or there are 6 or more on the court from one team when it is preventable. We do that all the time. When officials are in a hurry to put the ball in play, those things tend to happen. So yes, it would be the officials fault and if I was on the game I would take full responsibility for that happening. It should never happen if we are taking our time and not in a hurry. When you just throw the ball in play and everyone is not on the court and ready to go, this is what happens. We should not be putting the ball in play when there is chaos.

It is very fair. I can talk about anything I like or say anything is relevant. You told me what is not relevant and for some reason if this happen to me or anyone in this state I do not recall anyone is going to call you and find out. So yes this is very relevant when you are trying to make a stab at me because I said something you did not agree with.

Secondly, I have talked about this rule and only the rule. For some reason you came into the picture and just wanted to throw stones. You did not come here to add to the discussion because you do not like me. That is your MO and that is why you went through the entire Kentucky/Rupp discussion in the previous thread and I was not even the person that brought up anything about Rupp or what I thought about that topic. That also was not the topic of that thread but when it fits what you want to talk about that is relevant but what I mention is "changing the subject."

Are you so afraid of race issues that when someone just disagreed with your point of view it had to be about race? I did not disagree with you in that Rupp discussion because of a race situation, I disagreed with you because the people that were around at that time said that Rupp was a racist based on his actions and things he said. Now you are trying to tell me I change the subject and that entire discussion was you changing the subject from the original post. So what is your excuse?

Peace

I look at this rule like the football rule the NF created about 3 or 4 years ago. The NF in Football created a rule that said a penalty by the opponent of a scoring team could choose to take the penalty on the succeeding spot (Extra point, Kick off for example). We all knew why the NF created the rule, but there were loopholes in rules and interpretations. Even in that case the NF had two different opposing interpretations. One was on the website; the other was in their Official's Quarterly. Individual states came up with their own interpretation to remedy the situation. The very next year the NF changed the wording and made it very clear what their ruling was. The NF even had to change the wording in a couple of areas so that there was no conflict in the Football Rules.

This rule strikes me as the same situation in basketball. The NF has not addressed the situations where the defense has violated this rule and what to do about it. Even in my state when we tried to clarify some situations, they were confused. It is also clear that this rule was changed to deal with on major situation and that is why they said, "Typically this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside of the end line and returns to the other side of the court free of their defender." It is clear they were thinking of one type of situation and did not think through where other aspects of this rule might be misinterpreted. The more I read this the more confused I get about this play. I do not see how you get an advantage by running out of bounds on defense and we should call a violation. If they do not want it called, the NF should make that clear. All we are doing is debating the situation with no official word from the NF.

I agree with Camron. The penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason was CHANGED from a T to a violation (not modified, ammended or otherwise tweaked to meet specific circumstances). Absent some type of related unsportsmanlike conduct, the only possible call is a violation. There is no longer any basis in the rules for assessing a T for this.

While I agree it would have been ideal if one of the officials noticed it right away when the player left the court and immediately whistled the violation, in the reality of a game situation I can see how it could get missed initially.