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

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I believe a rational arguement could be made that when a player deliberately jumps OOB with control of the ball that it is not momentum.

I suppose it could, if the rule included the word "intentional" or "deliberate". But it doesn't. Using momentum doesn't seem to be against the rules. Momentim is a specific physical factor that doesn't have any moral judgment. whether a player "momentum"s on purpose or just gets "mometumed" by accident doesn't change the nature of the physics. And the rule book doesn't distinguish between those.

[just another ref]

It's simple. You're inbounds until you land out of bounds. As long as you are inbounds you can do whatever you like. You can pass off and land in the balcony. If this rule was changed as some are suggesting, it would open a huge can of "he coulda stayed inbounds" worms.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I suppose it could, if the rule included the word "intentional" or "deliberate". But it doesn't. Using momentu
m doesn't seem to be against the rules. Momentim is a specific physical factor that doesn't have any moral judgment. whether a player "momentum"s on purpose or just gets "mometumed" by accident doesn't change the nature of the physics. And the rule book doesn't distinguish between those.

So, what about when a player causes his "momentum" to take him OOB around a screen?

And am I doing a good job playing devil's advocate?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

So, what about when a player causes his "momentum" to take him OOB around a screen?

And am I doing a good job playing devil's advocate?

Not really.

In your what if, the play would be legal if she could get around the screen without touching the floor oob, ie, staying in the air. What are the chances?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Not really.

In your what if, the play would be legal if she could get around the screen without touching the floor oob, ie, staying in the air. What are the chances?

Well, sure, but that would have nothing to do with the original play. In the original play, the problem has nothing to do with the ball and when/where it is passed. It has to do with the player ending up OOB. Why should it be any different if a player ends up OOB getting around a screen as throwing a pass around a defender?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Well, sure, but that would have nothing to do with the original play. In the original play, the problem has nothing to do with the ball and when/where it is passed.

Yes it does. The "problem" has to do with people mis-interpreting that the player is passing the ball from oob, when in fact that play happens from inbound space that is above the oob space.

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Why should it be any different if a player ends up OOB getting around a screen as throwing a pass around a defender?

Because the problem isn't that the player "ends up oob" to get around a screen. It's that the player is oob in the middle of the play and ends up inbounds again. That's the problem. Which is different from the OP where the player isn't "using" oob space to gain an advantage.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Yes it does. The "problem" has to do with people mis-interpreting that the player is passing the ball from oob, when in fact that play happens from inbound space that is above the oob space.

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.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Because the problem isn't that the player "ends up oob" to get around a screen. It's that the player is oob in the middle of the play and ends up inbounds again. That's the problem. Which is different from the OP where the player isn't "using" oob space to gain an advantage.

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.

[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.

[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?