spirit of the rule

[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)

[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.

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

"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.

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

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.

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.

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

3. Absolutely, reasonable, knowledgeable and objective people would consider this to be an intelligent application of the rules, those with other agendas would not.

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.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

3. Absolutely,reasonable, knowledgeable and objective people would consider this to be an intelligent application of the rules, those with other agendas would not.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

3. Absolutely,reasonable, knowledgeable and objective people would consider this to be an intelligent application of the rules, those with other agendas would not.

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[daveg144]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by daveg144

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.

[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.

[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...