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

[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.

[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]

[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.