spirit of the rule

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.
...snip...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

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.