The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 22, 2002, 10:57pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Question

The March "Referee Magazine" arrived today and in the Test Yourself on page 19, brings up our former hot topic about B1 standing with one foot OOB when A1 charges into him. According to Referee, this is a PC foul. B1 having a foot OOB doesn't matter. They cite rule 4.19.6 which is just the rule on PC fouls and doesn't really address the OOB factor and case 4.19.3.C which is a typo, since that case deals with intentional fouls. If they meant case 4.19.6.C - that deals with airborne shooters, so I really don't see their justification for their answer.

However, since I am smarter than the magazine (sorry, Barry), I have found something to support the theory that B1 can have legal guarding position with one foot (or maybe both) OOB. The problem we have dealt with in the past on this issue somewhat was dependent on defining the "floor" as just being the inbounds portion of the gym (I don't say "court" because rule 1 defines the court as being the inbounds portion by giving dimensions) or if the "floor" includes the OOB portion of the gym, since the establishment of legal guarding position deals with the players relationship to the "floor".

Rule 7.1.1 states: "A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary." This statement says to me that the "floor" can include territory outside a boundary. The boundaries are the OOB lines.

I think it's fair to then draw the conclusion that you can have a foot OOB and still be on the "floor".

Of course, this leads to the "voluntarily leaving the court" arguement, and that's a whole other bunch of bananas.

Also - in Referee's defense, an article on throw-ins reminded me that if B1 reaches across the boundary and fouls A1 while A1 is holding the ball, not only is it an intentional foul (which, of course, I remembered), but also serves as the first delay warning for a boundary violation (which I heard about 5 years ago, but forgot). While there is no specific case for this, boundary violation rule 9.2.11 and the subsequent penalties for article 11 read as a group supports this.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 23, 2002, 07:02am
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Sounds good to me, but it is 07:00amEST, and I have not had my first Dr. Pepper of the day yet.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 23, 2002, 10:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Sounds good to me, but it is 07:00amEST, and I have not had my first Dr. Pepper of the day yet.
Is "Dr. Pepper" anything like "Dr Pepper?"
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Feb 23, 2002, 11:31pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Wink

Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Sounds good to me, but it is 07:00amEST, and I have not had my first Dr. Pepper of the day yet.
Is "Dr. Pepper" anything like "Dr Pepper?"
Dr Pepper is the pregnant version of Dr. Pepper. See if you can figure it out.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 24, 2002, 01:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Sounds good to me, but it is 07:00amEST, and I have not had my first Dr. Pepper of the day yet.
Is "Dr. Pepper" anything like "Dr Pepper?"
Dr Pepper is the pregnant version of Dr. Pepper. See if you can figure it out.
no period, must be as pregnant as a yard dog
__________________
tony
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 24, 2002, 11:28am
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally posted by crew
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Sounds good to me, but it is 07:00amEST, and I have not had my first Dr. Pepper of the day yet.
Is "Dr. Pepper" anything like "Dr Pepper?"
Dr Pepper is the pregnant version of Dr. Pepper. See if you can figure it out.
no period, must be as pregnant as a yard dog

Its 11:27amEST and I still have not had my first Dr(.) Pepper of the day so I am in no mood to argue (just kidding).
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 24, 2002, 11:45am
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett
The March "Referee Magazine" arrived today and in the Test Yourself on page 19, brings up our former hot topic about B1 standing with one foot OOB when A1 charges into him. According to Referee, this is a PC foul. B1 having a foot OOB doesn't matter. They cite rule 4.19.6 which is just the rule on PC fouls and doesn't really address the OOB factor and case 4.19.3.C which is a typo, since that case deals with intentional fouls. If they meant case 4.19.6.C - that deals with airborne shooters, so I really don't see their justification for their answer.

However, since I am smarter than the magazine (sorry, Barry), I have found something to support the theory that B1 can have legal guarding position with one foot (or maybe both) OOB. The problem we have dealt with in the past on this issue somewhat was dependent on defining the "floor" as just being the inbounds portion of the gym (I don't say "court" because rule 1 defines the court as being the inbounds portion by giving dimensions) or if the "floor" includes the OOB portion of the gym, since the establishment of legal guarding position deals with the players relationship to the "floor".

Rule 7.1.1 states: "A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary." This statement says to me that the "floor" can include territory outside a boundary. The boundaries are the OOB lines.

I think it's fair to then draw the conclusion that you can have a foot OOB and still be on the "floor".

Of course, this leads to the "voluntarily leaving the court" arguement, and that's a whole other bunch of bananas.

Also - in Referee's defense, an article on throw-ins reminded me that if B1 reaches across the boundary and fouls A1 while A1 is holding the ball, not only is it an intentional foul (which, of course, I remembered), but also serves as the first delay warning for a boundary violation (which I heard about 5 years ago, but forgot). While there is no specific case for this, boundary violation rule 9.2.11 and the subsequent penalties for article 11 read as a group supports this.
My concern is this:

We penalize an offensive player for leaving the playing area, whether on purpose or not. (I've called it once - late in the 4th quarter in a championship game. The player surely didn't *mean* to go OOB, but did nonetheless, to use a screen and catch a pass while inbounds again. He then jacked up a three and I waved it off, called the T.)

So, we penalize an offensive person for not being to perform normal offensive movements associated with the game entirely inbounds. Why do we not keep the same requirements for the defense. What I'm reading from the thread earlier and Mark's text above is that it is ok for the defense to leave the playing area to circumvent the rules of the game. He is OOB because should the ball touch him, it's an out-of-bounds violation!

Just throwing that out there.

..Mike
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 24, 2002, 03:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 4,801
Mike, in these examples, generally the defender will have part of one foot on the line. It is not his intent to be OOB, and it does not give him an advantage - so no T.

When a player runs clearly OOB to avoid a screen, that gains an advantage and should be an instant T.
__________________
"To win the game is great. To play the game is greater. But to love the game is the greatest of all."
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2002, 01:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
So, we penalize an offensive person for not being to perform normal offensive movements associated with the game entirely inbounds. Why do we not keep the same requirements for the defense. What I'm reading from the thread earlier and Mark's text above is that it is ok for the defense to leave the playing area to circumvent the rules of the game. He is OOB because should the ball touch him, it's an out-of-bounds violation!

Just throwing that out there.

..Mike
The offense can gain an advantage by being OOB.

The defense gives the offense an advantage by being OOB. Don't "pile on" to this disadvantage by caling a T on this.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2002, 01:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 188
I think the key to the technical foul in JR's post is "intentionally" leaving the court to avoid a violation or a screen.

The defender with his foot OOB must be standing somewhere. It's not a violation for him to step on the line. Stepping OOB doesn't change his status as a player. I would call PC on A1 even though B1 clearly had a foot on the line.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2002, 07:39pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Let's try this one.

A has a frontcourt endline throw-in at the close down position. A sets up a 3-person wall parallel to the sideline. Defense is stupid and doesn't have someone on either side of the wall. Ball is passed to the middle guy, who passes to the thrower-in who is now behind the 3-point line. A defender on the key side of the wall, which is very near the endline, goes around the wall by stepping OOB. Let's even say quite a bit OOB for arguments sake. That is, both feet stepped OOB, if only one of them a few inches.

Do you call a T? A player voluntarily left the playing area to gain an obvious advantage.

Let's say that it's near the end of the 4th quarter, A down by 2 with a good shooter as the thrower-in. B1 steps OOB to go around the wall, and even jumps to block the 3-point shot by A and gets a piece of the ball. Do you call a T here?

Just throwing it out there.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 25, 2002, 08:29pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Let's try this one.

A has a frontcourt endline throw-in at the close down position. A sets up a 3-person wall parallel to the sideline. Defense is stupid and doesn't have someone on either side of the wall. Ball is passed to the middle guy, who passes to the thrower-in who is now behind the 3-point line. A defender on the key side of the wall, which is very near the endline, goes around the wall by stepping OOB. Let's even say quite a bit OOB for arguments sake. That is, both feet stepped OOB, if only one of them a few inches.

Do you call a T? A player voluntarily left the playing area to gain an obvious advantage.

Let's say that it's near the end of the 4th quarter, A down by 2 with a good shooter as the thrower-in. B1 steps OOB to go around the wall, and even jumps to block the 3-point shot by A and gets a piece of the ball. Do you call a T here?

Just throwing it out there.
Good question,Mikey!If the defensive player goes completely OOB to avoid a screen on the baseline,I'd probably call the T if he got a piece of the shot.He did gain an advantage.If he didn't block the shot or make the shooter alter it,I'd probably pass,but I'd whisper to him to stay inbounds next time.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 25th, 2002 at 07:36 PM]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1