Going OOB Question...

[buckrog64]

A1 dribbles down the middle of the lane where he passes off. He goes out of bounds while the ball is live and in his team's possession. Not forced out. I'd say he's not out for an authorized reason and I have called a turnover on A. Wanting to make sure I'm correct on this and would like to know your situations where/when you wouldn't make this call. Thanks.

[Scatmaster]

1. Was he going down the lane hard where his momentum took him out of bounds?

2. Was there an advantage caused by his going out of bounds?

If it was momentum that took him out of bounds I would probably have nothing. If he went out of bound around a pick and got the ball back I probrobably would call it. Although I have seen someone leave the court for unauthorized reasons (stepping on end line while cutting I have called it on only a couple of occasions where the player gained an advantage).

[Adam]

I'm letting this one go; momentum is an authorized reason. You going to consider saving a ball an unauthorized reason if they weren't forced out.

[Nevadaref]

PLAYER OUT OF BOUNDS – LEAVING THE COURT
9.3.2 SITUATION A: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane. A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. RULING: A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. (9-7)

[Back In The Saddle]

I'm going to bring this up again to see if the brain trust's thoughs on this have changed at all. Both BamaRef and I have brought this up before and found ourselves outside the majority opinion.

We have a school in our region that runs a set play where a player will run toward the baseline, leap out of bounds, and pass off to an open teammate across the key while in the air out of bounds. This play was recently discussed in our association meeting, and he and I just kind of smiled to each other and waited to see what the outcome would be.

I'm inferring from NevadaRef's posted response he believes the OP's situation is a violation. Would it be any less of a violation if the person leaving the floor were anywhere other than in the paint before leaving the floor?

[Adam]

Sounds like a dangerous play anyway. If that pass gets covered, there's not much of a plan B. I'm not calling it.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sounds like a dangerous play anyway. If that pass gets covered, there's not much of a plan B. I'm not calling it.

Dangerous in a couple of ways. I was at this school last week, and they ran it 3-4 times, in a small gym with close walls.

I didn't call a violation. But I still feel this play doesn't square with what I perceive are the Fed's intentions of ensuring that game is played within the boundaries of the court.

BTW, If the formerly omnipresent Chuck Elias happens to read this, I would like to see this play submitted as a potential case play to the NFHS.

[Nevadaref]

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

I believe that your play is legal.

Just my opinions.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I didn't call a violation.

Gee, I would certainly hope not. There's no rule being violated.

[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?