spirit of the rule

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is simply an out-of-the-blue call. No one is expecting it. No on will be looking anywhere near it; you'll be the only one who saw it. Nobody (observers, coaches, fans, players, etc.) will even know what happened until you explain it. It's not unsportsmanlike or flragrant....so leave it alone. Make many of those non-obvious calls and you'll limit your career.

I resent the implication that your philosophy conveys--namely that the official is doing something wrong. It is, in fact, the player who is breaking the rules and the official is simply doing his assigned duty and penalizing that.

Your logic is as bad as the screaming fanboy who blames the official for the failings of his team. It is because of people like you out there that teams continue to infringe the rules and put officials in such situations. If more people would simply enforce the rules as written, instead of coming up with all kinds of lame excuses for not doing so, then the teams would know that and their actions would reflect that. In other words, if they were fairly certain that they would be penalized, they wouldn't do many of these things.

The NFHS has made their position on this particular rule very clear. They have insisted that the players remain inbounds during such game action. To fail to adhere to that directive is to do a disservice to the game and your fellow officials. In fact, continual refusal of officials such as yourself to properly penalize players for going OOB at unauthorized times is the main reason that the NFHS lessened the penalty, and yet you still won't make the call. Truly sad.

The NFHS can't say it any clearer than this:

2004-05 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. Player positioning/status. Players must play the game within the confines of the playing court. Otherwise, a tremendous advantage is gained by allowing a team or player more space than allowed. There are two specific areas of concern:
A. Players on the court. 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 all players. Too often, players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example 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 rule that is already in place. It is a technical foul.* Coaches benefit the game by teaching players to play on the court.

(* Note: This was the final year that the penalty was a technical foul. It was changed to a violation the following season.)

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

From the "preamble" to NFHS Rule 1:

"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

To those arguing for a whistle here, how would you answer the following questions?

1. Can you clearly explain the advantage our little lost lamb gained?
2. Can you clearly explain the disadvantage the other team was placed at?
3. Would other reasonable, knowledgeable, and objective people consider this an intelligent application of the rules?

This call will have a very significant and direct impact on the outcome of the game. So...take your time answering. Everybody in the gym awaits your clear, rational, and compelling explanation about why this was a good call.

So at what point are you going to make this call?

What if all four teammates of A1, who is dribbling in the backcourt, are running OOB along the far endline?

I know that is carrying it to an extreme, but the point remains the same. The offensive team is definitely committing a violation.

You seem to be looking for a reason to justify making this call. I think that is the wrong approach. Shouldn't one come at it from the opposite direction, and seek justification for not calling the clearly defined violation?

The only justification which I can find is in Case Book play 9.3.3 Sit D, and the elements of the play under discussion here (from the OP) do not fit the given criteria.

9.3.3 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)

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I used to call the game the way you and others suggest. Doing so will get you only so far. Calling things like this, nearly a full court from the play and such that you are the only one who has any idea it happened, will only cause others (partners, evaluators, assignors, coaches, etc.) to wonder if you even understand the game.

I understand what you are saying. However, some if not most games are taped. We do agree about the partners, evaluators etc wonder if you understand the game. I see it both ways (damn if you do; damn if you don't) situation.

Some people want the game to be black-and-white and have difficulty seeing grey. But it is not and it never will be. Every rule has a reason and we must understand the reason for the rule before we can intelligently apply it....not just blindly apply it. That is the art of refereeing.

I agree with this.



There is no chance you're taking by not calling it or delaying the call. It should, fairly quickly, be evident whether it is by design and relevant.

I agree with this too.


This is simply an out-of-the-blue call. No one is expecting it. No on will be looking anywhere near it; you'll be the only one who saw it. Nobody (observers, coaches, fans, players, etc.) will even know what happened until you explain it. It's not unsportsmanlike or flragrant....so leave it alone. Make many of those non-obvious calls and you'll limit your career.

50/50 depends on who you work for. I agree with that.

Do you really think the NCAA promotes calling stuff like this? In watching games on TV, how many off-screen whistles do you normally observe? Near zero. When you do get one, it is usually a rough, physical foul.

The point I was trying it make is. It is not a violation unless you touch the ball after going OOB around a baseline screen (men, i believe).

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by truerookie

The point I was trying it make is. It is not a violation unless you touch the ball after going OOB around a baseline screen (men, i believe).

The violation is to be called as soon as the player steps out of bounds. 9.3.3

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

The violation is to be called as soon as the player steps out of bounds. 9.3.3

I believe the rookie was talking NCAA rules; where that is not the case.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So at what point are you going to make this call?

This is a very fair question. I can't give you an exact distance from the ball at which I'll call it. It's more like three seconds and borderline palming. I'll call it when it produces an advantage, I'll call it early in the game to clean it up, I'll continue to call it as long as the kid continues to do it. But the first time in the game I call this will not be with < 1 minute to go when the ball is 70' away and there is no discernible advantage.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What if all four teammates of A1, who is dribbling in the backcourt, are running OOB along the far endline?

Okay, I am probably going to call it in this case. This would be the "call the obvious" portion of "call the obvious; call what matters".

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I know that is carrying it to an extreme, but the point remains the same. The offensive team is definitely committing a violation.

Yep. And it's also a violation if the high post has his heel on the FT line for 3.1 seconds.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You seem to be looking for a reason to justify making this call. I think that is the wrong approach. Shouldn't one come at it from the opposite direction, and seek justification for not calling the clearly defined violation?

It may seem that way. But I'm actually very much of the mindset that a violation is a violation, however there are times and situations where calling a violation is just not an intelligent application of the rules. So I guess you could categorize my "philosophy" as call all violations that occur except in those fairly rare situations where it would make the game worse to do so. This sitch, IMHO, is one of those cases.

So let me ask you this...do you call every three seconds you see? Will you call it when it's the post player with his heel on the far lane line while the PG is trapped at mid court? Do you call borderline palms on the PG bringing the ball up court all by himself? Do you strictly call every travel, even the borderline ones when the receiver of a pass is still adjusting his feet when he gets the ball? Do you call a lane violation every time an inch of somebody's toe breaks the plane 1/2 second early? Do you call every instance of every violation every time no matter what? I don't believe you do. None of us call every one every time.

So your original question is an important one; at what point do we call a violation that is very much unrelated to the game? And I'd like to pose that question back to you. I've explained some of the common criteria I apply. I very much respect your opinion, even if I don't always agree with it. So I ask you: What criteria do you apply? I'd like to know.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
From the "preamble" to NFHS Rule 1:

"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

To those arguing for a whistle here, how would you answer the following questions?

1. Can you clearly explain the advantage our little lost lamb gained?
2. Can you clearly explain the disadvantage the other team was placed at?
3. Would other reasonable, knowledgeable, and objective people consider this an intelligent application of the rules?

1. The little lost lamb could have been "found" by A1 and received a long pass negating the pressure and count in the backcourt by intentionally going OB to get open.
2. If this clearly illegal action is allowed without a whistle, then team B behind by two points with time running out is denied an opportunity to score to tie or even win the game. Yes, it was away from the ball - but we call fouls away from the ball all the time and work hard not to "follow" the ball all the time.
3. Absolutely,reasonable, knowledgeable and objective people would consider this to be an intelligent application of the rules, those with other agendas would not.

[jdmara]

In discussions like these, I would love to post a poll to see who would call it without knowledge of ball location or would would take the Advantage/Disadvantage approach....Darn computers are keeping us down since you have to start the thread with a poll, it cannot be added

-Josh

[JugglingReferee]

As luck would have it, I had this play last night's in a men's league game.

Now, it is the D division, which means that these just just want a reason to be away from their wives for 2 hours... However, an offensive player went OB in his frontcourt, by accident, and not a lot OB, while trying to get into position for the ball carrier who was in the backcourt. There was no pass imminent, and the defender didn't lose any ground or anything.

I had no whistle.

[BBall_Junkie]

Nevada,

Do you call three seconds on the post man who has his heel on the lane line and the ball is at or near mid court?

I hope so because that is what the rule says....

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

As luck would have it, I had this play last night's in a men's league game.

Now, it is the D division, which means that these just just want a reason to be away from their wives for 2 hours... However, an offensive player went OB in his frontcourt, by accident, and not a lot OB, while trying to get into position for the ball carrier who was in the backcourt. There was no pass imminent, and the defender didn't lose any ground or anything.

I had no whistle.

Juggler, Were you calling FIBA rules? Its a no call in FIBA anyway unless it is Intentionally Deceptive. Then its only a warning or directly going to a Technical. That was a interpretation I received last year from Paul Deshaies.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

1. The little lost lamb could have been "found" by A1 and received a long pass negating the pressure and count in the backcourt by intentionally going OB to get open.
2. If this clearly illegal action is allowed without a whistle, then team B behind by two points with time running out is denied an opportunity to score to tie or even win the game. Yes, it was away from the ball - but we call fouls away from the ball all the time and work hard not to "follow" the ball all the time.
3. Absolutely,reasonable, knowledgeable and objective people would consider this to be an intelligent application of the rules, those with other agendas would not.

#1..."Could" have been found? But he wasn't and A1 wasn't trying to find him there.
#2...By that argument, a bump of the bodies where B5 had LGP on A5 while A5 was cutting through the lane but pass also denies team B the same thing.
#3....what agendas? My agenda is to properly call the game in front of me, not some rigid, never-intened, distortion of the game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I resent the implication that your philosophy conveys--namely that the official is doing something wrong.

They are. This is NOT what the rule was intended to cover.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is, in fact, the player who is breaking the rules and the official is simply doing his assigned duty and penalizing that.

...minus understanding the rule and the purpose it was designed for.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your logic is as bad as the screaming fanboy who blames the official for the failings of his team. It is because of people like you out there that teams continue to infringe the rules and put officials in such situations.

No, I don't make them do anything. I call the infraction when it really occurs, not when something similar to it occurs because I can't tell the difference.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If more people would simply enforce the rules as written, instead of coming up with all kinds of lame excuses for not doing so, then the teams would know that and their actions would reflect that. In other words, if they were fairly certain that they would be penalized, they wouldn't do many of these things.

I tried that...calling it blindly by the letter of the rule..didn't get me very far. I realized that people that call it that way usually stay in JV-land. There is a lot more to understanding the game that reading the rulebook.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS has made their position on this particular rule very clear.

Indeed they have. Too bad you're missing it.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They have insisted that the players remain inbounds during such game action. To fail to adhere to that directive is to do a disservice to the game and your fellow officials. In fact, continual refusal of officials such as yourself to properly penalize players for going OOB at unauthorized times is the main reason that the NFHS lessened the penalty, and yet you still won't make the call. Truly sad.

Again, you completely miss the purpse of the rule and it is clear you'll not understand it. In fact, I have called it and will likely call it again...when the plays even somewhat like those the NFHS describes happen.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS can't say it any clearer than this:

2004-05 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. Player positioning/status. Players must play the game within the confines of the playing court. Otherwise, a tremendous advantage is gained by allowing a team or player more space than allowed. There are two specific areas of concern:
A. Players on the court. 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 all players. Too often, players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example 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 rule that is already in place. It is a technical foul.* Coaches benefit the game by teaching players to play on the court.

OK, let's break this down a little more and figure out what they're really talking about. Note the green text. The reasons given are that a "tremendous advantage" is being gained. The type of situation being address by the rule is a player using OOB and around a screen for the purposes of shaking a defender or a defender going OOB in order to keep up with their man. Did ANY of these things happen in the player we're talking about? No, they didn't. They were not trying to get the ball to that player and the ball was in a location where it was completely irrelevant. What advantage was there? The situations where this rule apples clearly revolve around advantage gained or attempting to be gained, not the simple act of running OOB.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

(* Note: This was the final year that the penalty was a technical foul. It was changed to a violation the following season.)

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

Same story. Note the green text. If you see the whole play, it will be evident what is happening and when it needs to be called.

Again, I ask, do you call 3 seconds right at 3 seconds....every time....no matter what the play situation is? Do you call disconcertion every time a defensive player wiggles their fingers or says something during a FT? Do you carefully observe non-jumpers at the jump ball to ensure they don't move even 1" around the circle before the ball is touched? Do you measure a 3' throwin spot and call a violation if a throw leaves it by 1"? Or, do you approximate it and give the thrower the benefit of doubt unless they blatantly leave the spot? These are all clearly defined vilations but I

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.

Again, you skip the most important part of the rule book....the admonition understand the intent and purpose of the rules and to intelligently apply the rules. If we were to apply it to the letter of the text, that entire preface wouldn't exist.

All of the comments above clearly imply plays where the player in question is gaining an advantage or attempting to gain an advantage. The comments specifially mention that the purpose of the rule is to address an advantage being gained by using the OOB space to their benefit. In no way has the player in this case come close to matching the situations being addressed by this rule or the comments on the rule.

[chartrusepengui]

IMO by ignoring this you are NOT properly calling the game in front of you.

How has that player NOT gained an advantage?

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

sounds like you don't understand that the NFHS DOES want this called - has even made it a point of emphasis. But after reading all your posts I know it won't change the fact that you won't make the proper call. I do find it disturbing that you can't see that A2 has gained an advantage. Further discussion on this point with you is completely pointless.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

Juggler, Were you calling FIBA rules? Its a no call in FIBA anyway unless it is Intentionally Deceptive. Then its only a warning or directly going to a Technical. That was a interpretation I received last year from Paul Deshaies.

I wish! FIBA is far better than Fed, imo. But the men's leagues still use Fed rules. Sigh...