Penalty for unauthorized leaving floor

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I agree. So is that it, then?

Do you care to give a reason for your belief?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Do you care to give a reason for your belief?

I've said this now about 5 times. There isn't a reason. That's what makes it "arbitrary"! If you disagree, I can't convince you. They just ARE a big deal. Just like I can't give you a solid reason for saying that the palming in the backcourt (while obvious) is NOT a big deal. It just isn't. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

(I edited my previous post to reflect Bob's comments, but you quoted before I finished editing.)

[Nevadaref]

What if someone else said the boundary line violations are NOT a big deal? There's no reason for saying that the person just does.

It sure would be fun to see the two of you work a game together.

[chartrusepengui]

palming the ball is really a judgement of exactly where the official sees or doesn't see the hand to ball relationship at any given moment. It is ever changing. However - the lines on the floor are static - they don't change. I think that is why they are such a big deal. I might let the carry go - but would whistle the boundry line violation.

To those that would not whistle the boundry line - what about a backcourt violation where player A was not being pressured. He was backing up calling a play and his heel was on the division line? Since there was no pressure or ball advancement do you decide not to call that?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What if someone else said the boundary line violations are NOT a big deal? There's no reason for saying that the person just does.

It sure would be fun to see the two of you work a game together.

That's exactly right. But maybe part of what makes me certain that it's a big deal is that I can't imagine anyone would actually let it go on purpose. "Yeah, I saw he was out of bounds, but I didn't think the game needed that call. So I ignored it."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

That's exactly right. But maybe part of what makes me certain that it's a big deal is that I can't imagine anyone would actually let it go on purpose. "Yeah, I saw he was out of bounds, but I didn't think the game needed that call. So I ignored it."

Isn't that exactly what the NCAA officials were saying about the boundary line infractions on throw-ins a couple of years ago?

How about the toe on the FT line?
How about a toe on the 3pt line? Are you going to award three points or two?

[chartrusepengui]

How about the toe on the FT line?

Violation

How about a toe on the 3pt line? Are you going to award three points or two?

Two - provided the ball goes in the basket

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Isn't that exactly what the NCAA officials were saying about the boundary line infractions on throw-ins a couple of years ago?

Yes although in a slightly different context (being inbounds as opposed to being out of bounds), and the got reamed for it. The NCAA made it clear that boundary lines are a big deal. Thanks for making my point for me.

How about the toe on the FT line?

Not a big deal.

How about a toe on the 3pt line? Are you going to award three points or two?

Of course it's a big deal.

What's the point of your questions? You're asking questions that you know the answers to and that (I'm pretty sure) we agree on. So what's really bugging you?

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just ask yourself this simple question: Is it really a big deal? That's it, honestly.

The kid just palmed the ball in the backcourt with no pressure. Did he violate? Sure did. Is it really a big deal? No.

Dribbler just barely palmed the ball as he froze the defender to drive to the basket. Did he violate? Yup. Is it a big deal. Yes, it's a really big deal.

Free throw shooter took 11 seconds to make the try. Did he violate? Sure did. Is it really a big deal? No.

Offensive team takes 11 seconds to get over the midcourt line against a heavy press. Is it a really big deal? Yes.

Dribbler just barely steps on the out of bounds boundary. Did he violate? Yup. Is it really a big deal? Yes. Boundary lines are a big deal.

It may seem overly simplistic, and in some cases some people might say that it is a little bit arbitrary. And I can't argue with either of those objections. I can only tell you that it has worked for me.

I agree. I guess my point is that some (dare I say a majority) do use some judgment when it comes to some violations whether they will admit it or not. Scrapper, your list above points out quite well that imo all situations where a violation has occured are not created equal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What's the point of your questions? You're asking questions that you know the answers to and that (I'm pretty sure) we agree on. So what's really bugging you?

The point is that you are grossly inconsistent. You are penalizing players for stepping on certain lines on the court, but not on others.

You are letting a player score a point while touching one line, but not letting him score a point while touching another. Where is the sense in that?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Where is the sense in that?

One is a big deal and the other is not. :shrug:

Are you saying that you would wave off the free throw in a varsity game because the shooter's toe touched the line? Are you honestly saying that?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

One is a big deal and the other is not. :shrug:

Are you saying that you would wave off the free throw in a varsity game because the shooter's toe touched the line? Are you honestly saying that?

I'm not Nevada, but I both would and have waved off a free throw in a varsity game for violating the FT line. And I've never had an arguement or gotten a call later about it. The fact that it's varsity basketball makes me that much more certain that touching the line is unacceptable. All the players know the rule and should know how to shoot a FT w/o touching the line.

I actually agree with a number of your points, Scrapper, but lines are lines, and enforce them everywhere, including the FT line.

[chartrusepengui]

been there done that - especially at varsity contest where they should really know better. Maybe we should let varsity players take 4 steps on a drive to the basket too - that makes about as much sense as saying this violation is no big deal. When the HC questions you as to why you allowed a point to score on a clear violation on the FT - are you going to tell him because it's no big deal. His team down by 2 with 6 seconds left brings ball upcourt and unleashes an attempt but the toe touches the line the same way it did with the FT and you call 2 points. Better run for your life - why not flip a coin to determine what rules are important enough to call on any given night?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

One is a big deal and the other is not. :shrug:

Are you saying that you would wave off the free throw in a varsity game because the shooter's toe touched the line? Are you honestly saying that?

I just measured...there is 1.125 inches from the end of my big toe to the outside edge of my shoe.



How 'bout this one?

A is down by 1, 10 seconds remaining in the game after a made FG by B and subsequint Time out.

A1 and A2 are now in the backcourt, all team B is at other end of court, no backcourt pressure.

A2 is standing at the FT line in BC and A1 inbounds the ball by rolling it on the floor to save time (so the clock won't start). But, the ball touches OOB by a good foot or so on the "bowling ball style" inbounds pass. Big deal?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by CoachP

How 'bout this one?

A is down by 1, 10 seconds remaining in the game after a made FG by B and subsequint Time out.

A1 and A2 are now in the backcourt, all team B is at other end of court, no backcourt pressure.

A2 is standing at the FT line in BC and A1 inbounds the ball by rolling it on the floor to save time (so the clock won't start). But, the ball touches OOB by a good foot or so on the "bowling ball style" inbounds pass. Big deal?

This exact play - a throw-in violation to conserve time - caused a lot of discussion locally about 5-6 years ago during a high school final!

The calling official on the game called the violation. I would have too.