Screen on an inbounds pass...

[jdmara]

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 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 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

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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 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 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.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Did this offensive player have the ball?

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

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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......

[Adam]

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.

[capwsu]

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 )

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

#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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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.

So, taking time-out from the presidential race, do we all agree this is not 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".

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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".

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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".

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.