But that's the exact opposite of what you said in the thread that I quoted above. In that thread, some people were arguing that it was a violation for a teammate of the thrower-in to go out of bounds on the endline to go around a screen. You argued that it was NOT a violation because the teammate is authorized to be out of bounds during a non-designated spot throw-in. You said "Going OOB on the same line during a teammate's non designated spot throw-in is always authorized." Now in this thread, you're saying going out of bounds to go around a screen would be a violation.

I know it's the presidential election season, but that's a pretty big flip-flop, Jurassic. :D

No, because it's an endline throwin. All offensive teammates are allowed to step out of bounds.

Skippy, what we have here is a failure to communicate.:)

There are two completely different situations involved here imo....i.e. (1) an unrestricted throw-in, and (2) a screen. Yes, it is perfectly legal for a teammate to go OOB on the <b>same</b> endline during an unrestricted throw-in. That's because we have no idea whether that player is gonna participate in that throw-in. Of course, it's also because the rules also do say that it's legal anyway. It is not legal for that teammate to go OOB on any other boundary line during the same unrestricted throw-in though. Now....imo though, the rules do not allow any player to set a screen while standing on a boundary line...any boundary line....under any circumstances That principle was set out in that POE that I listed.

Jmo but I think that the intent of the rules involved is to not give any player any unfair advantage by going OOB during any throw-in. There is one exception listed and that exception is a teammate going OOB on the same endline only during an unrestricted throw-in....to possibly be a part of that throw-in. That isn't considered to be an unfair advantage, by specific ruling. However, if a teammate is setting a screen, then they aren't being part of the throw-in. If the player wanted to set a screen while standing <b>completely</b> OOB on that endline, fine...go ahead and do it. There's no earthly reason to do so because there's no possible way to get an advantage out of any screen set fully OOB. Setting a screen with a foot on the endline though is a whole 'nother matter. The screener is gaining an advantage by using the endline as <b>part</b> of the screen in that case.

Different acts, different rules iow imhgo.

I do thank you though for finally acknowledging that I am possessed of presidential timber. If drafted, I will run. If nominated, I will accept. If elected, I will serve. Maybe we should just have a poll though instead of going through all that boolsh!t.

Nice touch Jurassic. ;)

OK ... now what if it was during the normal course of play? How do you deal with a player running out of bounds?

It's a violation.

Nfhs 9-3-2
 

9.3.2 Situation A: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane. A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. Ruling: A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. (9-7)

9.3.2 Situation B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained by the double screen. Ruling: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.

9.3.2 Situation C: 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 a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is 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)

9.3.2 Situation D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. Ruling: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption. Comment: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

So, taking time-out from the presidential race, do we all agree this is <B>not</B> a violation and simply an inadvertant whistle?

Now moving on to the hypothetical about B3 setting the screen with one foot OOB - wasn't there a case play at one time about B3 being responsible for contact, even though they may have been set, because having one foot OOB does not constitute LGP? It did not ever make the statement that having that foot OOB was "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason". I know if I have a drive along the baseline and a crash into that player, and both players end up on the floor, I'm not coming out with a violation on B3, I'm calling the blocking foul.

I don't have access to MTD's attic, so I hope someone can post the case or comment. All of the examples I've seen posted about unauthorized leaving the court have to do with running completely OOB on purpose. I have yet to see an example in the rules or case plays on a player standing with one foot OOB being "unauthorized".

Were you at a camp in Iowa? Which one? I was in Pella Friday night to help out with the camp.

By the way, to me this is the correct way of looking at the play. I think the violation would be nit picking.

Are you asking me or Johnny?

Sorry, I was asking Josh from the OP. He has Iowa listed as his location.

No problem - I try to stay out of Iowa as much as possible. :)

B2 obtains lega guarding position on A1, who is dribbling near the sideline. B2 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the OOB area when A1 contacts B2 in the torso.

Ruling: In (a), B2 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player -control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position (4-23-3a)

That's the one.

B2 is called for a foul, not a violation for being OOB.