I don't think so. The point of the rule is to give support to officials in case something happens which couldn't be thought of in advance when writing the rules. You can't devise a new kind of violation: they are part of playing technique, everybody has to know how basketball is played, and they are precisely described in the rules.

Nothing in the present rules suggests that it is disallowed to play OOB. Coaches teach to put a foot OOB when defending on a player who's dribbling along the sideline and the same Fred Horgan says this is allowed; you can "play OOB" during a throw in after a basket. Last, the rule about going OOB deliberately to obtain an advantage has been canceled.

Personally I still continue to consider this worthy of a warning and a T after that (or an immediate T if blatant). But I would be very careful to use the elastic power to say "violation for going OOB". There's only one case when "going OOB" is a violation and it's very different: it's 17.3.2 (breaking the plane during a throw in) and has actually nothing to do with being OOB, since a player can violate even being in bounds.

My main point is: that rule existed (T after warning or immediate T). Since it's not there any more, there are two cases: (a) they forgot to carry it over during a revision; (b) they don't think it's illegal.

I'm with (a), let's wait for the people in Geneva to wake up.

Ciao

eg-italy
"Nothing in the present rules suggests that it is disallowed to play OOB. Coaches teach to put a foot OOB when defending on a player who's dribbling along the sideline and the same Fred Horgan says this is allowed; you can "play OOB" during a throw in after a basket. Last, the rule about going OOB deliberately to obtain an advantage has been canceled"

Somehow I think you are contradicting yourself. Anything deliberately done by the offensive team to gain an unfair advantage is a violation. Putting a foot OOB to defend is a nothing as they, the defenders do not have control of the ball and cannot lose possession.

What does your Rules Interpreter say? have you aked him/her?

cheers.......Nick

I'm just pointing out that the rules are ambiguous about this situation.

For example, why should the infraction be limited to the offensive team? Isn't it an unfair advantage for the defense going OOB to avoid a screen along the baseline?

Again, you can't call a violation for "illegally going OOB". There's nothing in the rules that supports this call: it's either a T (possibly a warning at the first occurrence for each team) or nothing. The rules decide what are the unfair advantages which are a violation; for example, deliberately kicking the ball is a violation for either team and is not limited to the offensive team.

Some case not covered by the rules can happen; the referee decides what to do and after that it is possible that the rule committee issues an official interpretation or a new rule. Some years ago it became frequent to go OOB in order to avoid a 3 second violation or a screen and the committee issued the rule we are talking about.

The concept of unfair advantage changes: it used to be basket interference to play the ball inside the cylinder, now it's not (FIBA rules, of course). Canceling a rule has a meaning just as adding a new one: when the cylinder rule was canceled it became legal to play the ball inside it.

Talking by paradox: the rule about going OOB was there, now it's been canceled; therefore now it's legal. :eek: No, I don't think it is. :)

The casebook I have is most definitely not a local thing. It is titled Fiba Casebook WORLD EDITION and is written by members of the FIBA World Technical Commission, for use in international play. You are relying on an old f.a.q. posted on fiba website that says there is no casebook...that info is seriously out of date. Two WORLD EDITION casebooks have been published: 2004 and 2006. In both casebooks they refer to CASE 38-5 there is no rule 38-5. It is a warning to the player followed by a technical foul if the player goes out of bounds again. Thats the way I am going to call this situation. I believe it is a clear advantage to run out of bounds in you frountcourt to play offense.

I hate to repeat myself, but, <b> there is no FIBA casebook</b>. The casebook you refer to was written by Fred Horgan, the North American official rules interpreter. It applies ONLY to North American FIBA referees.

The reason for this is simple. While each country plays under FIBA rules, and usually implements the entire FIBA rulebook, there may be individual differences between FIBA member states. For example, when the possession arrow was introduced to FIBA rules, Basketball Australia (the local governing body) decided not to implement it as per the FIBA rules, but instead to wait 6 months - this was due to the timing of the rule change and the Australian basketball season. As a result, an official FIBA endorsed rulebook was published in Australia - while it was a FIBA publication, it only applied to Australia. In a similar way, the casebook that you have is a FIBA publication, but it is only relevant to FIBA North America.

FIBA only publishes 5 documents relevant to refereeing:

1. Official Basketball Rules 2006
2. Official Fitness Test for Referees
3. FIBA Official Basketball Rules 2006 - Official Interpretations
4. Offical Basketball Rules 2006 - Referees' Manual (2 person)
5. Offical Basketball Rules 2006 - Referees' Manual (3 person)

It also publishes 3 documents regarding the education of referees that are the scripts of the educaiton DVD's.

Oz Referee
The casebook is published by FIBA, copyrighted by FIBA and edited by FIBA. So I am pretty confident there IS a casebook available to officials and it is not just for 2 countries. Perhaps your association did not want to spend the money.

Here is the contact information for getting copies:
FIBA
Chemin de Blandonnet 8
PO Box 715
CH-1214 Vernier
Geneva, Switzerland.
Telephone: 41 22 545 0000
email: [email protected]

OZ Referee if you contact Steve Smith at FIBA Oceania in Coffs Harbour.That is where I bought the FIBA casebooks for use in NZ

There was an answer by Fred Horgan:

Question: A player goes out of bounds in order to avoid a screen, a 3 second violation or, more generally, to take an advantage.

There's no mention of this in the present rule book, but there used to be.

What's the correct procedure? What rules can support the official's decisions?

Answer: Depending of the circumstances, a technical foul could be called. However, the FIBA philosophy is that a warning should be given before calling a technical on a repetition of that infraction. This warning applies to all players of both teams and is therefore delivered to the coaches as well.

Ciao

intresting indeed, well it seams that we are more or less agreed, but still... I don't like the fact that I can't take up my rulebook point it to the coach and say "it's in here", becuse it's not!

Even though Fred answers with the information we already know, there is still no rule reference to support the answer. So if a coach will take, "Fred Horgan said so!" as my explanation I am good to go.

Probably the coach would say: "Who's Fred Horgan? Show me the written rule."

The problem is, as I said, that the rule used to be written, but has disappeared.

It's a case similar to that of the rule about BI after a foul on the shooter: for a period of time it was legal to touch the ball after it had hit the ring and was still over ring level. Now it's not, because they realized to have forgotten to carry on the exception from a previous edition.

Ciao

Fred Horgan is Canadian! :p

Ozreferee,
[II was the one who got the fiba casebooks into NZ and as I bought them from Steve Smith at Coffs Harbour and he is the FIBA Oceania sec.general I guess they must be official and available for you ib Australia also?