Going OOB Question...

[Nevadaref]

Yes, I believe that the OP's sitch is a violation.

I believe that your play is legal.

Just my opinions.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, I believe that the OP's sitch is a violation.

I believe that your play is legal.

Just my opinions.

For what? Maybe we're seeing different plays. I'm seeing a kid driving the lane, realizing he's deeper than he intended, passing the ball and his momentum takes him OOB. Are you calling 3 seconds? I can see that, but not for going OOB for an unauthorized reason.

[Nevadaref]

Adam,
I was picturing the player making the pass and then leaving the floor NOT due to momentum, but by choice.

If it was momentum, I agree with you.

[buckrog64]

My judgement was that he had plenty of opportunity to stop and change directions. I don't believe momentum was a factor in this sitch. I do understand where such M would be a factor. I didn't think it was in this time.
Going out of bounds coud have been avoided. Thanks for your thoughts.

[bronco]

Originally Posted by buckrog64

My judgement was that he had plenty of opportunity to stop and change directions. I don't believe momentum was a factor in this sitch. I do understand where such M would be a factor. I didn't think it was in this time.
Going out of bounds coud have been avoided. Thanks for your thoughts.

This brings up in my mind, does the player have to actively avoid going OOB to avoid the violation? If a player is dribbling towards an OOB line, in almost any case, they could stop their dribble and stay inbounds, if they choose. But, if they keep their dribble, then pass it as they are going OOB, would it automatically be a violation, even if their momentum carried them OOB after they passed the ball, and then the player returned to the court without a delay?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bronco

This brings up in my mind, does the player have to actively avoid going OOB to avoid the violation? If a player is dribbling towards an OOB line, in almost any case, they could stop their dribble and stay inbounds, if they choose. But, if they keep their dribble, then pass it as they are going OOB, would it automatically be a violation, even if their momentum carried them OOB after they passed the ball, and then the player returned to the court without a delay?

According to the Case Book, this is NOT a violation.

7.1.1 SITUATION C: A1 blocks a pass near the sideline and the ball goes into A1's front court. A1's momentum carries him/her out of bounds. He/she immediately returns inbounds, secures control of the ball, dribbles, shoots, and scores. RULING: Legal. (4-35-1a; 7-1-2; 9-3)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by buckrog64

My judgement was that he had plenty of opportunity to stop and change directions. I don't believe momentum was a factor in this sitch. I do understand where such M would be a factor. I didn't think it was in this time.
Going out of bounds coud have been avoided. Thanks for your thoughts.

At what point should he have turned? They have the entire playing court to use at full speed if they desire; are you saying he should have done so in a manner that would have controlled his momentum better? Are you saying that in BITS example of the drawn play that you'd call the violation?

[Camron Rust]

There is a fine line here. In all the published cases we have, the momentum exists because a player was trying to get to the ball....to save it or intercept it. In other words, they were drawn to the location.

In the hypotheticial case we're talking about here, that is not the case. In this situation, A1 plans to head OOB and use that to his/her advantage.

At best, it seems like a grey area.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is a fine line here. In all the published cases we have, the momentum exists because a player was trying to get to the ball....to save it or intercept it. In other words, they were drawn to the location.

In the hypotheticial case we're talking about here, that is not the case. In this situation, A1 plans to head OOB and use that to his/her advantage.

At best, it seems like a grey area.

I agree with you on this Cam. (It would be nice to have a rule with more parameters on this issue.)