Going OOB=T?-FIBA

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by NICK

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?

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. No, I don't think it is.