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

The following question was sent to John Lozano, CBOA Instructional
Coordinator, regarding the following play:

Rule 9-3-3

Situation: Player A1 in the front court dribbles down the left
sideline and as he gets to the baselinehe goes airborne (a) over in bounds
territory and makes a pass to player A2 in the far right corner, (b)over
out of bounds territory and makes a pass to player A2 in thr far right
corner. In both cases A1 lands out of boumds.

Question Does it matter if A1 is very skillful and has devolped a play
(team practice play) where A1 jumps over out of bounds territory (on
purpose) where he can't be well guarded and passes the ball after which
A1 lands out of bounds

Ruling Rule 9-3-3 does not apply in this case since Player A1 has
the ball. This rule is not intended to penalize momentum

Is anybody anywhere saying that Rule 9-3-3 applies here? Can't imagine...

Haven't discussed it with the association, but if all he does is land and immediately return to the court, no way is that a violation.

Why oh why is NFHS R9-S3-A3 so difficult to understand. It is meant to penalize a player who deliberately leaves the court to gain and advantage not allowed by the rules. A player's momentum from making a legal play taking him out of bounds is NOT an infraction of this rule.

MTD, Sr.

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? :cool:

1. To those who think this is a violation because the offense is gaining an illegal advantage: What prevents the defense/defender from jumping from the playing court, over out of bounds to defend the pass?

2. How is this, in application, any different from an A player underneath one block, pinned to the endline, delivering a wraparound pass to a teammate underneath the other block, with the pass being released, traveling in the air, and caught, outside the vertical plane of the endline?

You are where you were till you get where you're going. These plays mean the players are still inbounds until they land. Not inconsistent at all.

While I don't consider this a violation, I do see where the point is coming from. The player is in full control and is making a choice to jump OOB. That player is not going where the ball takes them (chasing down a lose ball, rebound, etc.) but is choosing to jump OOB with no other reason than to get an advantage just before landing OOB. Again, I don't consider it a violation, but I can understand the argument.

I concur, Camron. It was a good question that has since been answered by the NFHS in this year's inteps. (Did anyone bother to look there? ;) )

SITUATION 5: A1, while being defended, is driving from near the free-throw line extended toward the end line. A1 continues toward the end line and pulls up and goes airborne just before the boundary line with his/her momentum carrying him/her out of bounds. Just as A1 goes airborne, he/she passes off to a teammate across the lane and lands out of bounds. RULING: No violation. A player's momentum, after performing legal actions on the court that results in taking him/her out of bounds is not a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. However, if A1 purposely or deceitfully delays returning after legally being out of bounds to gain an advantage, a player technical foul would be assessed. (4-4-3; 9-3-3; 10-3-3)

Sooooo........whatintheheck <b>is</b> the difference then between this play and saving a ball?:confused: 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 <b>is</b> 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 <b>not</b> intended by the rules when the <b>rules</b> very <b>specifically</b> say that it's <b>legal</b>? It's even posted above now....Situation #5.

There's one heckuva big difference between making a play while you are already OOB, <i>a la</i> the highlighted references of your above, and making a play while you are still <b>in-bounds</b> (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.

MTD asked a question; I answered it. Obviously the Fed disagrees with me. I can live with that. And I'll continue to call it their way. But that doesn't make me like it. ;)

I'm not disagreeing here. Obviously the Fed says this is legal, so no problem with the play.

The difference, however, is the intentionality of it. In saving the ball, the player hasn't intentionally determined anything - the ball determines that he must go OOB. In the situation described, the player intentionally jumps OOB to make a play.

Both are legal, but there is a reason someone could argue one should be legal and one illegal.

My solution...
 

I think we should take all ambiguity out of it and go back to the era which brought us the term cagers.

I'm thinking we could update to plexiglass instead of chicken wire.

:D

eyezen:

I doubt you are old enough to remember caged basketball games, but I hope you are part of a new generation of rules historians to replace old geezers like me and distinquised gentlemen like JR. :D

MTD, Sr.

I still have marks on my arms from jumping up against the cages. Of course, that was when I lived in the monkey house at the zoo. They finally let me out when they determined I was a danger to the monkeys. :p

I've got to get back on my meds. :o