Penalty for unauthorized leaving floor
 

Per case 9.3.3C below, does the offense receive the ball after an unauthorized leaving of the court by a defensive player during a try if a) the basket is scored and b) the basket is not scored?. The case ruling seems unambiguous <b>(A will receive the ball)</b>. However, at our chapter meeting, there was disagreement if the offense should receive the ball after a made basket. The one point of agreement was that a patient whistle (holding until after the try is complete) would be advisable in this situation.
<p>
<b>Case 9.3.3:</b><br>

A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2.Just as B3 goes out of bounds,A3's try is in flight. Ruling: B3 is called for a leaving the floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at the spot nearest to the where the violation occurred. Since the violation occurred on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful,it will count.(6-7-9 Exception d).

There is no abmiguity. If this violation is called while a try is in flight, A is going to receive the ball regardless of whether the try is successful.

I agree that's the ruling. However, I think the next time it's called will be the first.

And maybe the last for that particular official......:)

So this is an A/D thing?

This is a violation that should not be called when the basket is made. However, the case indicates that the call has been made. If the whistle has been blown and the call has been clearly indicated (no opportunity to cite an inadvertant whistle), the official does not have the discretion to disregard the penalty. Well, maybe in a rec game where the pain of explaining would be greater than the potential pain of ignoring the rule.

I could be wrong, but I think the case indicates that the call is supposed to be made. The rule is supposed to apply equally to offensive and defensive players, and is supposed to be applied immediately.

In real life, it's not going to get called very much, as Jurassic pointed out. But by the book, you're supposed to call it right away and give the ball back to the offense whether the try was successful or not.

the generally recognized concept is that advantage/disadvantage does <b>not</b> apply to violations. In the real world though, there might be a <b>few</b> generally accepted exceptions to the generally recognized concept. :) Certain situations pertaining to 3-seconds is one example. This situation might be another.

What is the word??? Could it be ambiguity????

Nice catch...unfortunately, my hugely powerful brain moves faster than my fingers, rendering them unable to type letters in the correct order.

Er, something like that, anyway...:D

so, what would be the signal for calling this?

You mean the signal for "unauthorized leaving the floor" or for "I just screwed my career by calling that" ??

haha. the former. im kinda curious as to what you would use

HAHAHA!:p

After stopping the clock with the open hand, I would utilize signal 26 - basically pointing to the line where the player left the court, then give the directional signal. I would also verbalize something along the lines of, "24 blue, leaving the court."

At least, that's what I'd do while I'm thinking about it at my desk...:D

Then try to avoid the coach.

1) Horizontal index finger against the temple. Thumb perpendicular to the index finger.

2) Drop thumb towards the index finger.

3) Make an explosion sound.

4) Report to the table:

Color: Black & White

Number: R (soon to be U2)

Signal: Repeat 1-3

Breaking News
 

From Jurassic Referee: "The generally recognized concept is that advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations. In the real world though, there might be a few generally accepted exceptions to the generally recognized concept. Certain situations pertaining to 3-seconds is one example. This situation might be another."

Breaking News: I just looked out my window and saw several pigs flying by.

Breaking News: The pigs are chasing your memory loss.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...163#post344163

Note the lightbulb <b>finally</b> going on in BillyMac's head. Note post #3 made by myself. Note the consistency of philosophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac

The second part of his response did surprise me. He stated that he had attended several national interpretation meetings during the off season and that the NFHS was very concerned that many officials and many official organizations had taken these principles too far. The pendulum had swung too far to one side. Many officials and many official organizations had used the principle of Advantage Disadvantage to make up their own rule interpretations, in direct contrast to what the NFHS had intended in terms of how the game of basketball is to be properly played and officiated. Officials were acting like diners in a restaurant, selecting items (rules) that they liked from the menu, and not selecting items (rules) that they didn't like. According to Peter, the NFHS would like to see a more literal interpretation of the Rule Book, and would like to have these rules applied to actual game situations in that literal manner. It appears that Jurassic Referee and other members of this Forum are way ahead of their time. Officials like myself, and official's organizations, like my local Board, are going to have to move the pendulum back the other way.

Jurassic says:
Just for the record, Billy, I personally don't think that you can take any kind of simplistic view and apply it wholely to game situations. There are certain violations that I think that even the FED rulesmakers would probably agree, if you twisted their arms, that some discretion(read: advantage/disadvantage) is needed to make an appropriate call. Examples might be 3-seconds and the 10-second count on a free-throw shooter. My point all along was that you just couldn't try to apply advantage/disadvantage indiscriminately to violations. Most violations must be called.

Zak says:
This is a quote from the old thread you linked. With respect to the part that I have bolded, and with no trolling intentions, how do you decide which violations you would not call?

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.

Why? Let's say the player is in the backcourt and there is no pressure. The same conditions as for the palming violation that you would ignore.

Seriously why do you make a big deal out of having a toe on this line and not worry about having one on the FT line while attempting a FT? (Or substitute: a toe on the lane line for more than 3 seconds or barely touching inbounds during a throw-in (or not fully being OOB however one views it) or running the end line in the fc while on offense without the ball and putting half of a foot OOB).

What makes an OOB violation by a player with the ball so much more important in your mind than any other violation?

Because boundary lines are a big deal.

I told you that I'm unable to change your mind if you think they're arbitrary. I can only tell you that it works for me.

You still haven't said WHY "boundary lines are a big deal."

Or, ask yourself, "Is it a game interrupter?" ;)

IOW, I agree with Scrapper on this. Both on how to call it and how it can't really be described. Maybe it has something to do with "what everyone else sees" and the philosophy of "it's better to miss something that did happen than to call something that didn't". For example, "everyone" can see the foot on the line. But, it's judgment as to whether that was a good dribble or palming. People count at different rates.

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by "arbitrary". :)

They just ARE a big deal. If you disagree, I can't convince you otherwise. But I am sure that they are a big deal.

Did someone tell you that or did you just arrive at this conclusion on your own?

Bob Jenkins made me say it.

Are you saying that you would ignore an out of bounds violation if you deemed it to be "minor"? IOW, you disagree that boundary lines are a big deal? Or are you just uncomfortable with my lack of rationale? Or is something else going on that I'm missing?

I've expressed no reasoning for my questioning in this thread and you haven't articulated any reasoning for your expressed opinions in this thread.

I agree. So is that it, then? :)

Ok, if you push me on it, I would probably agree with Bob's attempt at explaining it. Everyone can see that he stepped on the boundary line, and it's not something that is a judgment call. That might be why you "have to call that". But I think that boundary lines are a big deal, even if it's not an "obvious" call.

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.)

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. :D

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?

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?

Violation


Two - provided the ball goes in the basket

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.

Not a big deal.

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? :confused:

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.

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? :confused:

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? :eek:

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.

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?

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



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.

Oh, Nevaaaaadaaaaaaa. . . .

Sounds just about right to me.

I do disagree with Skippy on <b>some</b> violations, but that's just a minor(and personal) disagreement. Some violations you should always call imo. Some violations you <b>might</b> call <b>sometimes</b>.

My personal "might call" list includes:
-player going OOB
- 3 seconds
- 10 seconds on FT
-"fisted" ball
- closely guarded when defender is at the 6' limit and not applying pressure
-swinging elbows when no opponent is close

Note that I said <b>"might"</b> call. I can't make a hard and fast rule, to be quite honest. Might bang it immediately. Sometimes though a warning just feels....right.

Wishy-washy? Probably. Shrug.....

JMO.....

I agree with the above list and will add one more (mostly seen in girl's games for some reason)...during a free throw, the person in the first lane space has their heel in the air above the block.

I believe in making calls that can be validated on video. If the player has a foot on the FT line, they have violated.

And if the video shows a player in the lane for 3 seconds, while the ball is outside, that's a violation too, I take it? Or if the video shows a free thrower taking more than 10 seconds?

I think I'm more concerned with, "Is it a career interrupter?"

Yeah, JR, I do my best to properly penalize those as well.

Calls 3 seconds <b>every</b> time an offensive player is illegally in the lane ...Got it.

Calls a violation on a FT shooter as soon as the count hits 11 seconds.....Got it.

Every single time! Got it.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

So do I, believe me. No camera from the top of the bleachers is going to see a TOE on the free throw line. We've never been talking about the foot stepping across the line. Just the toe, as he gets the ball above his head.

No way are you calling that in a varsity game or above. I just don't believe it.

For the record, if he steps with his foot on or over the line, I'll call that too. But I'm not calling one toe on the line and I honestly can't believe that you would either.

If you are talking about an assignor not getting you games because you called a violation when toe was on FT line as being a career interrupter - you have a serious delima.

Should you officiate with integrity - or officiate to please an assignor? The problem in our area is that the school's AD is sometimes the assignor. In other districts - they have conference commissioners which are basically assignors - and in two districts where I work they are staff members of a school. I can't worry about what they want - I have to call what I see regardless of the result or I seriously lack in integrity. Some calls require more judgement - but stepping on a line is pretty obvious and you can't intentionally kick a call like that and still maintain your integrity. I think in the end the assignors with integrity will think more highly of you as an official if you make these calls instead of looking the other way. You need to be consistent. Just my opinion.

Doesn't it depend on what we're calling a "toe"? If you mean an 1/8th inch of shoe rubber, I probably won't call that unless my partner has already called it once or twice. If you mean enough shoe that my actual whole big toe is on the line, then yea, it's gotta be called no matter what.

I know quite a few assignors. Please be assured that if they have an official that calls <b>some</b> violations(i.e. 3 seconds, 10 seconds for FT's, etc.) strictly by the rules, that official's career is not going anywhere but in the dumper. Integrity has nothing to do with it either.

As Bob Jenkins said, the concept is hard to explain. Be that as it may, it is still well understood.

So I guess you don't need any integrity to be an official - just cya in all situations?

I'm not going to engage in questioning of anyone's integrity. You can have that job. But what I will say is that NOT calling what doesn't matter does NOT lower one's integrity.

One toe on the free throw line does NOT matter. If you think it does, you're simply mistaken.

I disagree - I'm not . I read many sanctamonious messages about how sacred "certain" rules are and if someone does not call them a certain way - they are misinformed, 2nd rate officials. I was not aware that the Fed, NCAA or any other body says that you should only call the rules that you want to call, or that you are to interpret rules your own way. In fact, I have read many posts that state; "don't read so much into this rule" etc

Don't call the rules if you don't want to but please don't tell me I am mistaken. I am not trying to inflame anyone - but there seems to be too much finger pointing and name calling. A wise man once said, "Opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has one and they all stink!"

I haven't really seen any finger-pointing and name-calling in this thread. Well, except for maybe <b>you</b> trying to tell people that they lack integrity if they don't call the game the way that <b>you</b> think it should be called. I do see other officials voicing opinions that are diametrically opposite.

For the record, I take it that you are you following the same philosophy as Nevada. You advocate calling 3-seconds strictly as defined in the rules, with no warning, etc. And if a FT shooter takes 11 seconds, that's an immediate violation. Correct?

The bottom line is that each official has to decide their own philosophy as to what to call or not call. Obviously, nothing that is being posted here will change your philosophy either. That's fine too.

Here we go

If I am going to give a warning it's going to before 3 seconds, and yes I will blow the whistle if a FT shooter takes 11 seconds because by the time he catches the ball and I have visually started my count it's more than likely been longer than 11 seconds anyway. BTW - have you EVER come close to calling that one? I don't think that I've ever gotten close to 10.

I did not tell anyone how to call their game - or at least didn't intend to but I can't be responsible for how everyone interprets what they read. I did question however, not making calls in situations that they don't deem to be very important. If I missed something in the book could you please give me the specific rule that allows for this. In some threads some of the same people are very firm about making a call to the letter of the rule - but in other threads feel it's not as important. My real question is: not important to who? What if a team loses a game because a FT was counted when toe is on line whether a whole toe or an eighth of an inch. That would be important to the losing team IMO I'm sorry if you have somehow been offended by my view or questions. I guess that I just feel that if you don't call something that you see because at the time you don't feel it significant - that same call could have a huge impact in the outcome of the game.

You haven't read anything like that from me, so let's not start down that road. In fact, I haven't looked back over the whole thread, but I don't recall seeing any posts like that at all.

Well, I said at the very beginning of this discussion that I am unable to convince you if you disagree with me. But you are, in fact, mistaken. Sorry.

4 seconds left in a varsity game. Team A trails by 2. A1 is fouled and awarded a 1-and-1. As he rises to the balls of his feet to release his first free throw, the toe of his sneaker touches the edge of the free throw line. I submit to you that if you call that violation and essentially end the game in that situation that you simply don't understand what's important in the game of basketball. That toe barely touching the edge of that line has nothing to do with the game and should not be called a violation.

And I know that a college assignor would kill you for calling it. A high school assignor might not kill you, but I bet you'd get a phone call explaining the facts of life in no uncertain terms.

scrapper - I was not accusing you personally - I didn't say I read those messages from you so I wasn't going down that road.

You're going to call the game the way you call the game - that does not make it right nor wrong. However - please don't say that I am mistaken.

Point is - toe on the line is a violation

tell that to the team and coach that lost because you kicked a rule - I'll bet they don't feel the same as you do.

Do what you want but IMO you are not correct in this situation

maybe where you live but in fact I have gotten games both HS Var and JUCO because I had the courage to make that call.

I guess it's just different strokes for different folks. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind and we both feel the other is mistaken.

But - for the record - I do respect and enjoy reading many of the posts you have put out in the past. I find I agree with you in most situations. Sometimes it's good to air out differences - this being one of those times.

Happy and safe holidays

It's different strokes for different assignors. If you really think this is what they want in your area, and others are all calling it the same way, then that's great. In my area, you cancel a 1-on-1 with score tied and 3 seconds left because there was a shoe just barely grazing the ft line, well, you won't be doing a lot more games at that level -- ever. But that's how we all call it here, players are used to it here, coaches know that here. If it's different in your area, then that's what's gotta be done.

Now this I totally agree with! The biggest hassles I've had with the college coaches/players complaining occur when we do a series of games over the holidays. Teams have come from all over the nation and we'll often hear coaches complain that they don't "get that in Carolina" or "that's a focus point where we play". That said - we don't get many complaints with the conference teams in either bracket.

So if the game's not being taped you'll pass on this?

The rule book does specifically talk about knowing the "intent and purpose of the rule so it may be intelligently applied" (or something like that). And, it talks about advantage / disadvantage on all rules. That's all we're discussing here.

It's very difficult to write specific words that correclty and clearly convey to all people how they should be applied in all situations.

Another attempt at explaining what Scrapper and I (and others) mean: Look at what you need to look at. IOW, if a player is alone in the backcourt, you don't need to watch him / her very closely. So, if there's a "minor" palming, or travel, you probably won't (shouldn't) see it. If there's a press, you need to watch, and you will (should) see it.

This I will agree with - however - I was pointing out that if you see it in a close game where a violation could affect the outcome of the game it should be called. In a blowout - with player alone in backcourt I would not be watching as closely. In a tie or one point game I am going to be watching same situation much closer.

Yup, here we go again.:)

Now you've confused the heck outa me. You previously made a a comment about the NFHS and NCAA not saying that we should interpret rules our own way. You also above question officials for not making calls in situations that they don't deem important. But........you're still prepared to warn someone for 3-seconds instead of just calling it according to the rulebook? If I missed something in the book, could you please give me the specific rule that allows for this?

Afaik, there's no provision in either the NCAA or NFHS rules for "warnings" instead of actually calling 3-second violations. If you're warning somebody, aren't you....gasp....interpreting the rules your own way?

try reading my post again - I said if I gave a warning it would be before three seconds

and no I'm not interpreting the rules my own way - show me the rule that says I can't warn someone in the lane before 3 seconds by saying "keep moving" or "in and out".

Yup. And I asked you to cite a rule saying that you can <b>WARN</b> a player not to commit a violation. I'm still waiting.

You're the one that wants to follow the rules. Just tell me what rule you're following when you warn a player instead of just waiting for the 3 seconds to lapse.

Show me the rule that says you can.

Do you still call 3 seconds as soon as that count is up, even though a player may have heard your warning and is already in the process of leaving the lane?

Awesome. Sometimes the "tone" of a post is hard to read. I appreciate that this discussion has been level-headed for the most part.

Ok, you're. . . slightly less than correct. . . marginally deviating from acceptable. . . sub-optimal? :D Joking!! I'm just kidding around. You're obviously correct that we view this differently. Just like I can't imagine somebody seeing a player out of bounds and intentionally ignoring it, I can't imagine somebody waving off a free throw for having 1/8 inch of rubber on the free throw line. But if you are being rewarded for calling it, then it would be dumb for you to stop doing it.

I agree that it's a violation. I disagree that that is the point.

Honestly, I bet they do feel the same if you give them some time to cool off and think about it. "Coach, it didn't seem like such a big deal when we let it go on your end of the court." Nobody wants to win a game because a ref calls a microscopic violation.

Then, as I said, you'd be stupid to stop doing it.

True enough. Happy holiday to you and your family, too.

OK, I know I am only looking at one small part of this post here, but I gotta call "bullsh!t" on this part. No way did you get hired to do Varsity and JC games because you had the courage to call a freaking free throw violation. No way.

My guess would be that you were hired to work that level of ball because you not only know the letter of the rule, but also the intent of the rule. And you know how to apply those rules in the correct manner (despite what you have repeated in this thread).

Supreme Court Justice Bob Jenkins
 

"As Bob Jenkins said, the concept is hard to explain. Be that as it may, it is still well understood."

Didn't a Supreme Court Justice once say "I don't know what the definition of pornography is, but I know it when I see it".

It was Justice Potter Stewart and he was speaking about obscenity.

Just caught up on this looooong thread so I guess I can give my opinion like everybody else. Ironically, the free throw shooter foot on the line no-call is the one that caused a local jr. high coach, who is a friend of mine, to declare that I shouldn't call his games any more. In this case as the ball was bounced to the kid to shoot, he stepped up and put a toe slightly on the line, then looked down and stepped back before he shot. I personally have never called this violation at any level. But, if the shooter is touching the line when he shoots or jumps and comes down on the line, I call that at every level.
My personal thing on 3 seconds is to call it on a player that is completely in the lane with both feet, regardless of what else he is doing, or call it on a player that is actively involved in the play, no matter what small part he has in the lane, such as a player trying to post up. But my count is always generous in either instance. Only time I have ever called leaving the court for an unauthorized reason was for a player who was making a dash from one wing to the opposite corner and ran completely out of bounds even though he had plenty of room to stay in if he had chosen to do so. IOW, his leaving the court was not only unauthorized but totally unnecessary. I have heard the expression: "You call that one just for his ignorance." He was not alone, as no one on his team, including the head coach, seemed to have ever heard of the rule.

The NCAA often these days seems to treat traveling as "no big thing." Tonight in the Depaul/Vanderbilt game, with 30 seconds left in a 2 point game, a Depaul guy broke loose on a throw-in, caught the ball, took 2 long strides, and then put the ball on the floor before getting fouled on the shot. It was so obvious that the announcers noticed it, agreed on it, and laughed about it.

Yea, that's a real good indication of the NCAA attitude...:rolleyes:

That one went over my head. What do you mean by that?

The part I set off in red said that the announcers saw it as a travel and joked about it. But announcers are notoriously wrong about the rules, and so my point was that their agreement that it was a violation was not a good indication that the NCAA is lax about travelling. I tried to say it sarcastically by putting in the rolleyes icon, but I guess it didn't get the message across.

I'll try it more directly: Just because the announcers think there was a travel, doesn't mean there was one. So their pronouncements give no indication of how the NCAA wants the travelling called.

Did you read my description of the play? I didn't mean it was a travel because the announcer said so. It was a travel because I said so. The unusual part is that it was noticed and commented on by announcers.

JAR, don't worry about Juulie. She's just a bit cranky tonight. Something about a tennis bracelet.

You Arent following a rule. you are doing preventative officiating!:D

when life gets ya down and you're wearing a frown -

forget the meds - just come to the officials forum and

it will take just a short while to get you to smile!

This forum could be prescribed by physicians, psychologists etc.