Rule 9-3-3 California ruling, what is your association doing?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

No, you're deliberately ignoring the point that in order to make that play the player will leave the court. And there is no "inbounds space" above the oob. That is complete nonsense.

Wrong again. The problem is that the player leaves the court at all. The fact that he/she came back inbounds later isn't the basis for the violation, nor does it have anything to do with "the middle of the play". It's the act of leaving the court that is a violation.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the play is legal. The NFHS has said it's legal. Individual interpreters have called it legal. Fair enough; that's how I will continue to referee this play. But to insist that how the Fed ruled is the only possible, logical, or reasonable way the situation can be viewed is quite simply baloney.

The only way to interpret it as illegal would be to change the definition of oob to being the plane above the line. Slippery slope, imo.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The only way to interpret it as illegal would be to change the definition of oob to being the plane above the line. Slippery slope, imo.

Not at all true. BITS and I are obviously not communicating this very well.

Where the player is when he throws the pass is of absolutely no consequence. He has inbound status when he throws the pass. There is no violation there at all, nor any arguement there should be.

Where the violation would occur is when the player who passed the ball lands OOB. The arguement would be that this is leaving the court for unauthorized reasons and a violation. Regardless of where the passed ball is/was/will be.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

BITS and I are obviously not communicating this very well.

I think you're communicating it fine. It's just that nobody else thinks it's an issue to be concerned about. This whole thread gets a big "YAWN" out of me, personally.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think you're communicating it fine. It's just that nobody else thinks it's an issue to be concerned about. This whole thread gets a big "YAWN" out of me, personally.

I'd quit reading then, if I were you...

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Not at all true. BITS and I are obviously not communicating this very well.

Where the player is when he throws the pass is of absolutely no consequence. He has inbound status when he throws the pass. There is no violation there at all, nor any arguement there should be.

Where the violation would occur is when the player who passed the ball lands OOB. The arguement would be that this is leaving the court for unauthorized reasons and a violation. Regardless of where the passed ball is/was/will be.

But they specifically say that this is NOT leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. Nowhere does it say that the momentum has to be without intentionality.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

But they specifically say that this is NOT leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. Nowhere does it say that the momentum has to be without intentionality.

What if it's not momentum, but gravity?

Don't worry, rainmaker, I happen to agree with you on this, but do see the validity of the pondering the question, particularly when the NFHS came out with such a strong POE a couple of years ago insisting that the players play the game from "within the confines of the playing court." The NFHS could just as easily have said that this player is gaining an unfair advantage from jumping past the boundary plane and deemed the action to be a violation. I think that ruling would have been problematic at best and am glad that they didn't go that way.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Don't worry, rainmaker, I happen to agree with you on this...

Whew!! I was worried about that! Spent all last night tossing and turning, wondering why you hadn't checked in yet... [toggle sarcasm off]

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Whew!! I was worried about that! Spent all last night tossing and turning, wondering why you hadn't checked in yet... [toggle sarcasm off]

Well you might toss and turn tonight then, KNOWING that I do agree with your position.

Do you wish to reconsider?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Well you might toss and turn tonight then, KNOWING that I do agree with your position.

Do you wish to reconsider?

LOL!!

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

And there is no "inbounds space" above the oob.

I understand what here, and here are my two techincal cents:
BITS - Technically, there's no "out-of-bounds space" above OB either. For all intents and purposes, a player, by rule, is not out of bounds until he/she touches something that is out of bounds (which does not include the air out of bounds).
JUULIE - The rule does actually say "leave the floor for an unauthorized reason," as opposed to using the words "in bounds," so I see the counterpoint, too.

But I still think if this was the way the rules-makers intended the game to be played, all boundary lines would be vertical planes at all times (i.e. plexiglass cage), and not lines on the floor.

To take it one step further, then, is it a violation or a technical foul for a player jumping high off the ground (leaving the floor) in reaction to an official's call/no-call during a live ball?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I understand what here, and here are my two techincal cents:
BITS - Technically, there's no "out-of-bounds space" above OB either. For all intents and purposes, a player, by rule, is not out of bounds until he/she touches something that is out of bounds (which does not include the air out of bounds).
JUULIE - The rule does actually say "leave the floor for an unauthorized reason," as opposed to using the words "in bounds," so I see the counterpoint, too.

But I still think if this was the way the rules-makers intended the game to be played, all boundary lines would be vertical planes at all times (i.e. plexiglass cage), and not lines on the floor.

To take it one step further, then, is it a violation or a technical foul for a player jumping high off the ground (leaving the floor) in reaction to an official's call/no-call during a live ball?

LOL on the last sentence.

As for the other parts - jumping off the floor doesn't even have anything to do with BITS' arguement. The only thing that matters is that the player intentionally ends up OOB. Some would say that is leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason.

[tonyvan]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

...The FED has already set restrictions as to what happens when players go OOB. Those restrictions include a penalty of violations or technical fouls.

There is a big difference between in-bounds and out-of-bounds.

...Why does the penalty state "violation or technical foul"? when would this be a technical foul? I read this in the rule book under penalty during throw-in...

Thanks

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tonyvan

...Why does the penalty state "violation or technical foul"? when would this be a technical foul? I read this in the rule book under penalty during throw-in...

Thanks

It is a violation to leave the court for an unauthorized reason. Rule 9-3-3.

It is a technical foul to delay returning in-bounds after being legally out-of-bounds. Rule 10-3-3.

Different penalties for different actions.

Dem's the general rules to follow. You have to learn the nuances of how to apply each rule.