"Could have" is not the same as did. Did would be an advantage; "could have" is not. IF that happens, blow the whistle. I would.

The "balance of play" the rules seek for is between the two teams; it does not include us. Arguing a team was disadvantaged because we didn't give them the ball when we could have is like telling your boss you were late for work because the police didn't give you an escort when they could have.

The reasonable, knowledgeable, and objective people here seem split on the issue. So you are right, some would. I do not. I don't see making this call, based on the description in the OP, serving the game.

Question
 

I questions like this - I always think to the extremes to see if I would make the call:

If a player going in for a layup runs so fast after make the shot they leave the playing court - do you call this?

If someones foot is out of bounds standing elbow extended - do you call it?

If someone turns to jog up court on a change of posession to get into a set offense steps out of bounds - do you call it?

If someone trips and lands out of bounds.

Obviously there are times when an official would not call leaving the court, so it is never black and white.

My Call?
I would check to see if the Player gains an advantage - as that is the only scenerio in the case book. In what I read from the question - I would not call it.

The onus is on identifing the advantage gained...not proving no advantage was gained.

I understand it perfectly...in the context of what is acutally happening on the floor and when it is intended to be applied....not some completely unrelated situation.

You've skipped what I said then because I've said I have made this call ad will continue to make the call when situations occur that are like the NFHS cases presented.

You've failed to identify any advantage gained by A2. Until you do that, I don't have anything to dispute.

gslefeb - both of these situations are expressly allowed, and there is no judgement needed. "Unauthoized" leaving the court only has to do with intentionally leaving the playing court during "normal" plays; the obvious example is a player going around a screen along a line OOB, instead of stopping, or taking the longer way inbounds. Falling OOB, or momentum carrying a player OOB, has never been a violation under this rule.

I'd Better Get Of Of The Lane, My Three Seconds Is Almost Up ...
 

I would also call the violation if the player leaves the lane under the basket to avoid a three second violation.

That would be a three second violation, thought. :)

Three Seconds, Leaving Court, Same Penalty ???
 

Maybe years ago, before all the recent rules, and interpretations, about staying on the court. I definitely would have called three seconds in this situation during the years when the penalty for leaving the court was a technical foul. No way was I going to give a player a technical foul when I could get away with a three second call. But today, I'm probably going with a leaving the court violation, rather than a three second violation, even though the penalty is the same.

Count me as unreasonable, unknowledgable, unobjective, unintelligent and having an agenda because I am not calling this as described OP.

As I've said, I would never throw an official under the bus for making this call. That said, this may be the single most condescending thing written here in a long time.

It was an obvious advantage not intended by the rules ...
 

Last season, an offensive player avoids a screen by going out of bounds along the endline, almost knocking over my partner, who was the lead. He calls a violation on the offensive player for leaving the court. The funny thing is that a few minutes before this, when I was the lead, the same thing happened to me, by the same team, and I said to myself, without discussing it with my partner, "If this happens again, I'm calling the violation". First, and only time, I've seen this violation called, and I have no problem with the call. It was an obvious advantage not intended by the rules.

I am also not calling it as the play is originally described. Like others have said, if he receives a pass right after he steps in bounds, I blow the whistle.

It's hard to judge intent.

That being said, if I've seen the same thing earlier in the game and either ignored it or said something to the player/coach and they do it again right at the end (as described in the original play), I'll blow the whistle right away.

If you'd warned them, I can see it.

If you ignored it, I disagree.

It seems that Camron and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum and have little chance of finding any middle ground for agreement. That's okay though. He will do what brings him success and I will strive to do the same. We disagree on this point as strongly as possible, but as a fellow official I wish him well.

However, BITS, it seems that you and I have grounds for discussion. So I will attempt to respond to your questions and points in the best way that I can. Perhaps you will be persuaded by my reasoning, but perhaps you will conclude that handling these situations in a different manner is best. Whatever conclusion you come to, I wish you the best.

My answer to every question is no. Like you said, you already knew that. So what makes this play different?
It seems to me that there are two solid reasons that the situation in the OP needs to be called and the examples which you have provided above can be ignored.

1. As I have already posted, the NFHS has specifically stressed in past POEs and rule comments that leaving the court has become a problem and has directed the officials to make this call. They have even gone so far as to lessen the penalty in an attempt to encourage officials make a violation call for this and ensure that players remain inbounds during play. The NFHS even commented that coaches benefit the game by teaching their players to stay inbounds. Clearly the NFHS believes that this call enforces a principle (stay inbounds) that is for the betterment of the HS game. Therefore, ignoring this directive would seem to be a disservice to the game.

2. Running OOB/leaving the court is an obvious violation that everyone can see. There is a line painted on the floor and it is clear whether a player crossed it or not. This is something which can be objectively seen on video. By contrast all of the examples which you have posed above are subjective.

a. No one is keeping an individual clock on a player in the lane. There is no red light above his head that goes off when he has been in there too long. An official may not have been observing him right when he entered or may not be focused upon him due to more important action nearby. Also there is an allowance for a player who is making a move towards goal to remain in the lane for longer than the allotted three seconds. So three seconds is clearly not black and white.

b. Palming is clearly a judgment call by the official. Did the ball come to rest? Was the player's hand located to the side or on the underside? Does the hand location matter? No observer can say with 100% certainty that a violation did or did not occur here. It is a matter of opinion.

c. IMO Traveling is one of the most difficult calls in basketball (along with BI). Clearly seeing the timing of the catch, picking up the pivot, continuing to observe it during defensive pressure, and the all of that taking place while the players are moving rapidly up and down the court is tough. To top it off most spectators don't know the rules on traveling and think that actions which aren't violations are illegal. Having great certainty in a travel call is not easy. It is certainly possible and some are obvious, but many are not. I think that this is what allows some travels to be passed on without a negative impact upon the game.

d. With lane violations timing is everything. Some players are very good at timing their entry. The difficulty lies in the official having to observe two different things at once. The foot of the player in the marked the lane-space breaking the plane and the ball striking the ring or backboard. Is is really possible for a human to do that with great accuracy? Sure one can pause a video of the action and determine which happened first, but if it is that close, then one is not calling the obvious.

All of that said, I have been more mindful of traveling, palming, and lane violations since the NFHS made them each POEs last season. While I've tried to focus harder on these aspects of the game and properly penalize these violations when I see them, judgment is still required and they certainly cannot be classified as black and white like the crossing of a line on the court.

I really don't believe that adv/disadv is a concern with this play.
It seems that the NFHS has taken the stance that just as in the case of a thrower stepping over the line, no judgment is required here and a violation should simply be called, regardless of the position of the defense. I see this play ruling as having great similarity to the situation posed in the OP.

9.2.5 SITUATION: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team. RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

Anyway, I hope that provides clarification of my position and gives you something to consider.