spirit of the rule

[Adam]

I can see the use of judgment here, and I agree if you make this call, you'd better not have ignored it earlier in the game. That said, just because the ball is that far away doesn't mean the offense can't gain an advantage. Could be a press breaker designed to get A2 free for a pass.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I can see the use of judgment here, and I agree if you make this call, you'd better not have ignored it earlier in the game. That said, just because the ball is that far away doesn't mean the offense can't gain an advantage. Could be a press breaker designed to get A2 free for a pass.

Agreed absolutely!

-Josh

[Back In The Saddle]

With less than a minute to play, I don't want to make any call that isn't either consistent with what we have already called or so obvious and/or advantageous as to be a no-brainer call in the first minute of the game.

[truerookie]

At times when, I come to this site rules are discussed adamantly to blood almost being spilled on computer screens. Other times, I find it unbelieveable. This is one of those times. Yes, there are alot of unknown factors and the spirit of the rule come into play. I truly do not believe this is one of those situations. The way I understand the spirit of the rule is those situations when the rule is a tweener where the Referee has to make a decision.

In the OP, how do we as an official do not know that the play is not a design play because the coach is counting on us to take the SPIRIT OF THE RULE approach and gain an advantage from calling the play.

Why take the chance?

I will make the call whether the play is 3' or 104' away.

This is why the Feds should take the NCAA approach and eliminate supposed perceived game interrupter(s) interpret by some.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by truerookie

At times when, I come to this site rules are discussed adamantly to blood almost being spilled on computer screens. Other times, I find it unbelievable. This is one of those times. Yes, there are alot of unknown factors and the spirit of the rule come into play. I truly do not believe this is one of those situations. The way I understand the spirit of the rule is those situations when the rule is a tweener where the Referee has to make a decision.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by truerookie

In the OP, how do we as an official do not know that the play is not a design play because the coach is counting on us to take the SPIRIT OF THE RULE approach and gain an advantage from calling the play.

Why take the chance?

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.

Originally Posted by truerookie

I will make the call whether the play is 3' or 104' away.

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.

Originally Posted by truerookie

This is why the Feds should take the NCAA approach and eliminate supposed perceived game interrupter(s) interpret by some.

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.

[archangel]

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.

In how the OP was stated, though a HTBT, I do agree with you philosophically. I also disagree with your "career" comment. I refuse to make calls, or no calls based on what it might do to my "career". I get plenty of games, games I want, and have no desire to do college ball.......

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by archangel

In how the OP was stated, though a HTBT, I do agree with you philosophically. I also disagree with your "career" comment. I refuse to make calls, or no calls based on what it might do to my "career". I get plenty of games, games I want, and have no desire to do college ball.......

As for the career element, our games are assigned by an assignor, not by ADs/Coaches (as I think you may be thinking). So, I'm with you on making the right call without regard to what the coaches/ADs/Players think. But, when working for an assignor, you should be making the calls with regard to what your assignor expects. When an official develops a reputation of calling goofy stuff that is technically correct but is not the accepted norm and no one expects, many assignors will pick someone else when given a choice.

It's not about moving up to college. It is about not being a plumber. Our job is not to find everything wrong a team/player does...but to manage a game and ensure that no team/player gains an advantage not intended by the rules. An official that calls everything they see just because they see it will not go far....missing the larger picture of what intent of the rules are.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Just for a general note this is technical foul in the NCAA

Fouls and Penalties Art. 9. Deceptively leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason and returning at a more advantageous position.

So given the situation as posted you make that call, with a player who has moved further away from the ball that is in the backcourt under pressure and did not recieve a pass when they came back in bounds, and see how many more games your supervisor gives you.

While they are promoting more calls on this type of play as noted by the videos from last year, it is obvious by the rule that having the advantageous position can be confirmed by being wide open when recieving the pass from a team mate.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

Just for a general note this is technical foul in the NCAA

Fouls and Penalties Art. 9. Deceptively leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason and returning at a more advantageous position.

Disagree. That rule is for the player who sneaks out of the side door of the gym, goes down the hallway and reenters the gym (and court) at the other end.

"Running out of bounds around a screen" is a violation in NCAA if (and only if) the player is the first to touch the ball after s/he returns to the court.

[mj]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Also very well put Camron.

FWIW, I'm probably not making this call either.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I can see the use of judgment here, and I agree if you make this call, you'd better not have ignored it earlier in the game. That said, just because the ball is that far away doesn't mean the offense can't gain an advantage. Could be a press breaker designed to get A2 free for a pass.

Should be easy enough to tell if that is the case...no need to hurry with the whistle until the pass is in flight (or even until it merely appears that A1 is trying to make the pass). If A1 continues pounding nails in the backcourt, save the whistle.