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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Perhaps because some of us feel that by allowing the offense to deliberately leave the court in order to use the out of bounds area to make plays in gives them an advantage that we don't feel was intended by the rules. Not after all the freaking noise the NFHS made in recent years about playing the game inside the court. Not after their rationalizing about the defense gaining an advantage merely by having a foot on the boundary line. If the offense can't step out of bounds to go around a screen, why on earth should they be allowed to jump out of bounds to make a pass? This isn't saving a ball; it's a set play. It's inconsistent. And it's stupid.

That answer your question?

Sooooo........whatintheheck is the difference then between this play and saving a ball? In both, according to you, there is a player deliberately leaving the court in order to use the OOB area to make a play that gives them an advantage. What I fail to see though in both cases is a player that actually is OOB making a play. Maybe you can point out to me where that is happening.

And how can you possibly say that it's an advantage not intended by the rules when the rules very specifically say that it's legal? It's even posted above now....Situation #5.

There's one heckuva big difference between making a play while you are already OOB, a la the highlighted references of your above, and making a play while you are still in-bounds (which an airborne player jumping from in-bounds sureasheck is). The FED has been consistent as you could possibly get. They've been telling us that they want the game to be played in-bounds. The play that you're talking about is happening in-bounds. 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.