Screen on an inbounds pass...
 

Had a situation last weekend at a 3-man camp and the more I'm thinking about it, the more questions that pop up in my head. I was the new L after a made basket. As I'm jogging down court the new L calls a violation on the inbounds. He called a violation for the offense stepping over the baseline :confused: Yes, we all know that is not a violation since the offense can pass to another offensive player and then directly inbounds (but lets not hash out that argument). I'm certain he believed it was the defense crossing the baseline, whistled and then realized it was the offense. Mistakedly, I didn't come to his rescue because I was babysitting the coach who was flying through the roof. I really thought I was going to have to hold him back from attacking. Then I turned around he had put the ball in play :eek: Anyways...

The more I thought about this play the more scenarios went through my mind. So I pose the following question to you all:

A1 makes a 3-pointer with less than one minute left in the forth quarter to put them within two points. Team A decides to full court press. Team B quickly sets up a press break (with B1 out-of-bounds) as the official starts his 5-second count. No one from Team B seems to be getting open to receive the throw in because of great ball pressure by A4 guarding B1. B3 then sets up along the baseline with A) both feet inbounds or B) one foot inbounds and one foot out-of-bounds as B1 runs the baseline towards B3. A4 then makes contact with B3 (who set to make a screen). B1 subsequently completes a pass to B5 after contact was made. Is this a legal sequence of events? Can B3 legally set a screen in both situations?

Thanks, just curious...

-Josh

Bold: Did this offensive player have the ball?

A) Legal.

B) MU: Illegal = block. Report the foul and it's A's ball, or shooting if in the bonus.

No, the offensive player he called the violation on was the player that stepped out-of-bounds.

We talked about it after the game with the clinicians, who happen to be right on top of the play when it happened. The official that called the violation was so flustered he couldn't explain exactly what he saw. From what I gathered, B1 had possession of the ball when B3 was bumped out of bounds by a player from Team A. I believe that the official thought B3 was the defense coming across the endline, blew the whistle, then realized it was an offensive player. At that point he panic-ed. Unfortunately, I was the new lead that was staying with the 4 players in the front court with only my peripheral vision on the ball. In hindsight the C should have been there to help out and, honestly, I don't know where he was. It was a learning experience to say the least.

I thought it would be a violation if the screener had a foot out of bound but wanted to be certain. Thanks!

-Josh

You're right. It's a violation to leave the playing surface. B's ball again for the inbounds. If you think that A stepped OOB on purpose, to stop the clock, you might have something else...... :confused:

1. Why is it a violation for the screener to be out of bounds with one foot? He's legally allowed to be there.

2. If he's stationary, why is it a foul on B3? He's allowed his spot on the floor, and if he's not moving, he should be fine.

Situation 2 (screener with one foot OOB)
 

In my opinion, although B3 can legally step OOB following a made basket, once he sets a screen it seems to me like he is not in a position to set a legal screen. Similar to a defensive player trying to take a charge with a foot OOB (and yes I understand the difference that B3 can legally step OOB). I would interpret the play (if B gains a definite advantage or someone goes to the floor) that B3 cannot set a legal screen with a foot OOB.

If anyone here can discredit my interpretation I will be willing to hear it. It is a very interesting scenario I have not thought of before. It would reallly help to see it (from the stands at a camp and be able to listen to the evaluator's thoughts ;) )

Stepping out of bounds prevents a defender from establishing or maintaining Legal Guarding Position (LGP). LGP only gives a player who is moving the potential to take a charge. LGP is not required for a player who is not moving. If B3 gets to that spot first, he is entitled to keep it without being run over by A4.

edited to add: The screening rule (4-40) says nothing about keeping both feet inbounds.

Snaqwell, you remember the play Kentucky ran to attempt to get a foul called at the end of the game this year in the NCAA's. This play appears to be similar.

From the 2004-05 rule book POE's, when they clarified the rules philosophy....

<i><b><u>PLAYERS ON THE COURT</u></b> "Last year's emphasis ensured that defensive players obtain legal guarding position while on the playing court and not while out of bounds. The same principle is in place for <b>ALL</b> players. Too often, players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example is is an offensive player getting around a screen or defensive player by running out of bounds. That is not legal and gives a tremendous advantage to the offense. Officials must enforce the rules that are already in place. <b>It is a technical foul.</b> Coaches benefit the game by teaching players to play on the court."</i>

That gives you both the rules philosophy and the penalty. All players are supposed to stay in-bounds. If any player...either on offense or defense...gains an advantage by going out of bounds, it was a technical foul in 2004-05. That penalty for that rule was changed in 2005-06 from a technical foul to a violation(R9-3-3). Therefore, if a player sets a screen while standing OOB, and that screen serves it's purpose by making an opponent stop or go around it, the screener has gained an illegal advantage not meant by rule and must be penalized. Call a violation on the screener.

Except, of course, for players who are allowed to be out of bounds; like say, for example, a teammate of the inbounder. . . ?

Exactly, this player is allowed to go out of bounds. Therefore, it stands to reason he's allowed to be partly out of bounds. You can't call a violation on this player just because he stops half-way and happens, while standing still, to get in the way of a defender.

Apples and freaking oranges.

On an unrestricted throw-in, teammates of the thrower are allowed to go OOB on the same <b>endline</b> as part of the throw-in only. If we follow your line of reasoning, it would not be a violation for a player to set a screen with one foot OOB on that endline, but it would be a a violation if the same player set the exact same screen on a sideline or the other endline instead. And on a spot throw-in, it would be a violation for a teammate to set a screen with a foot OOB on <b>any</b> boundary line. Somehow, I really don't think that the purpose and intent of the rule was to legalize one instance only out of eight possible throw-in situations.

Rule 9-3-3 doesn't differentiate between being partially OOB or completely OOB. It simply states that it's a violation to leave the floor for an <b>unauthorized</b> reason. If an illegal advantage was gained, it <b>is</b> an unauthorized reason. And we know from the play where a defender can't have a LGP with one foot on a boundary line that the FED considers a player to be simply OOB. Nowayinhell did the rulesmakers ever intend setting screens OOB to be an <b>authorized</b> reason for that player to go OOB. The POE cited above tells us that.

What!?!?! So you're saying it would be a violation for A2 to run out of bounds during a throw-in to go around a screen set by A3? He's not part of the throw-in in that situation, so by your rationale, it should be a violation.

But when the rule changed from a technical foul to a violation for voluntarily running out of bounds, you (and a lot of other folks) argued that A2 had NOT committed a violation in that situation, precisely because he's allowed to be out of bounds during a throw-in anywhere along the endline.

Here are two quotes from you, from a very long thread from 2005 (when the rule changed) saying that there is no such thing as being illegally out of bounds on the endline during a non-designated spot throw-in:

If you stand by what you said then, it seems to me you can't say that the screener with one foot out of bounds during the non-designated spot throw-in is doing anything illegal. Being out of bounds is never unauthorized in that situation.

Um, yup, I sureasheck am saying that. That's case book play 9.3.3SitB. It doesn't differentiate between it happening during a throw-in or the ball already being in play. Both situations can happen during a live ball and in both cases a player is gaining an illegal advantage during the live ball.

2) There's a difference between a player legally leaving the court on an unrestricted endline throw-in by his team and a player illegally leaving the court to gain an advantage not meant by rule. They're completely different situations. Would you say that the same screen and OOB play would also be legal if a team ran it on a sideline?

3) See #2.

Apples and oranges imo. There's a big difference between teammates going OOB during a throw-in to participate in that throw-in and teammates setting screens while being OOB.

Player leaves the playing floor on his own ... violation? If so, could this not be considered that?

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.

See post #9. That's where the FED confirmed that the offense has to stay in-bounds too.

I agree it applies to both offense and defense.

How about looking at this from and advantage/disadvantage perspective? If the screener sets the screen with a foot on the line, they are putting their team at a disadvantage because if contact occurs it must be called a block. I'd say calling this violation would be a game interrupter.

<font size=1>Uh, oh, now you've done it.</font size>

Be gentle, JR. :D

I've been on the forum for a number of years under a different username (and not it wasn't oldschool). I've been in "discussions" with JR before. :D

You look at it exactly the same way that the rule book directs you to. We have to judge whether the player leaving the court did so for an unauthorized reason. Nowayinhell setting a screen OOB is an authorized reason to leave the court imo.

Now, maybe you can edjumacate me a little bit further. What exactly IS a "game interrupter"?:confused: It seems to me that every single time a whistle is blown during a game, that game is interrupted. What makes this particular call a "game interrupter" over all of those other calls? Gee, it wouldn't be because you happened to disagree with that call, would it?:)

Jurassic,

I really don't care about anything else in this thread at this point, except for your comment about going around a screen during the throw-in. I don't care about the player setting the screen (at least until we can agree on the player going around the screen). Just to refresh your memory, here's our previous exchange:

So in this thread, you have said unequivocally that it is a violation for a player on the throw-in team to run out of bounds on the endline to go around a screen during a non-designated spot throw-in.

But in '05, when the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason was changed to a violation, you unequivocally stated that it was NOT a violation for a player on the throw-in team to run out of bounds on the endline to go around a screen during a non-designated spot throw-in. The rationale you gave for that position was that "there are no unauthorized reasons for being out of bounds on the endline during a non-designated spot throw-in".

So which position is correct? The player running around the screen has committed a violation? Or the player has not committed a violation?

A teammate going completely OOB on the same endline during an unrestricted throw-in is legal. If that player goes OOB on any other boundary line though, that would be illegal. A teammate setting a screen while standing an a boundary line is illegal. They are completely different plays imo, as I've said heretofore in this thread.

Screens are supposed to be set in-bounds. The language of the POE that I cited backs that imo.

Absolutely. :D

While I agree with the rest of your statements, I'm not sure I follow this one. In the case play truerookie posted, why isn't the ruling an immediate violation for B2 being OOB for an unauthorized reason?

Good point. I really don't know why it shouldn't be an immediate violation instead of waiting for contact. The FED rationale for all play including LGP is supposedly that the game should be played in-bounds. You...well maybe me...would think that that the same principles would apply to both guarding and screening.

That's just the kind of mean-spirited banter that chases such esteemed members as Dan away from here.

Well, I thought about that as well. I agree with how the committee is addressing the fact that play needs to stay on the court. My thinking is perhaps the difference is between "leaving" the court, and just being OOB. In the examples given in case plays, the player <B>completely</B> leaves the court, and it is done with an obvious intent. Perhaps their thinking in this play is with one foot inbounds, perhaps the player isn't completely aware of thier position? So, with the thought that B2 is not completely OOB, and there may not be an intent to be OOB, the rules committee does not consider that "unauthorized"? Just thinking out loud.

Way to stand up for your former residence.

What do you mean? I bet Dan tries to stay out of Iowa as well? :confused:

I shouldn't have too, but M&M can be mean sometimes; apparently just for the purpose of being mean. Kinda like the Joker.

I don't think Dan could find Iowa.

Hmm...and <B>I</B> get called the mean one.

(Even though I agree with your point...)

Mean for mean's sake! Great movie Snaqs!!

Yet we still make throwins from OOB and allow the offensive team to be OOB durning the throwin...how odd!

Here is the KEY point that some just don't understand. It's all about LGP...you can't have it OOB. If the play doesn't require LGP, this case/rule is irrelevant and a player's location is not relevant regarding a foul.

#1...It's not. Any offensive player may be OOB on the throwin boundary following a made basket. There are no restrictions on why they are there...none.
#2. It isn't. The restrictions on being OOB are only for LGP...and screening doesn't involve LGP since LGP is a defensive requirement.

For all we know (and we're not mind readers), that player may be thinking they're OOB expecting to receive the ball from the teammate to complete the throwin or may think they're inbound sexpecting to receive the throwin pass. Unless someone can read their mind, you can't claim you know the reason they're OOB so they are there for an autorized reason.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust

sexpecting (nice word; could i use this in a game of scrabble?). :D