spirit of the rule
 

The Game:
Quarter Final Game AAU National Tournament 15 Under Division 1 NFHS Rules.
Score: Team A 42 Team B 40
Time: 0:54 to start the play.

Scenario:
Team A had cut the lead from 8 to a tie over the last several possessions with great defense and good scoring opportunities. Team B just took a two point lead again on a put back after being forced into a bad shot.

The play:
After the basket by team B - team A under back court pressure inbounds the ball, there is man to man pressure in the back court, with the ball being advanced casually by A1 under pressure between the FT line and top of the key.

Player A2 in the front court opposite side makes a baseline cut to the table side and goes out of bounds under the basket and returns inbounds while the ball is still in the back court.

The rule: NFHS

Rule 9 Violations and Penalties
SECTION 3 OUT OF BOUNDS
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds.
ART. 2 . . . A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.
NOTE: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception 4)


here is what happened:
With the ball still in the backcourt under pressure near the FT line/top of the key opposite, the player clearly went OOB with knowledge to make it to the other side of the floor.

The lead official made the violation call as soon as the player crossed the lane, I am not sure he was even inbounds yet the whistle blew.

Was it the right call by rule? in the literal interpretation of the rule - Yes!

Do you make this call? :mad:

Great call! Baseline cuts are the main reason this rule is in place; regardless of where the ball is.

great call and yes, I'd make it.

This is the only relevant portion of your case play.

Everything else is just noise.

No brainer, good call.

I tend to agree with the others - but your crew darn sure better not have ignored it any other time it happened during the game...

I'm going to disagree...

If that's all there is to it, I'm not making that call....not with the ball 70' away being casually walked up the floor. That is not the kind of play this rule was made for.

I don't know if I'm picking the dirty end of this stick if they are not gaining an advantage. If the ball is in the frontcourt at the top of the key, you bet I'm calling it. But if the ball is in backcourt and the player is not gaining an advantage, I would have to see the play first. For instance, was the defender screened as well? If the defender is still on the offender's hip, I might let it go and warn him not to go out of bounds like he just did. Did he go a few steps out? Did he go 12 feet out of bounds, out the gym door, and back in on the other side? There are too many what-if's to make a judgment IMO

-Josh

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

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.

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.

Except that the NFHS instruction has been to whistle the violation when the player leaves the floor.

As usual, look at the case plays provided for insight into what they're thinking...understand the intent and purpose of the rule as is stated in the preface to the rulebook. The point of this rule is to keep a player/team from using the OOB area for thier advantage....extending the playing court beyond the lines.

If what the player is doing doesn't have that effect and is not an attempt to have that effect, it is not relevant. The point about "when" the violation occurs is relevant with regards to ordering relative to other possible actions. If it takes you a couple seconds to realize the violation, fine, the rule merely establishes when it occurred. This is not unlike a dribbler who has ended the dribble subsequently pushing a ball to the floor in what may be a pass or another dribble....we wait to see who touches it next to decide what the action was....but the violation, if their is one, occurred on the release.

If there is a possible play to the player and the player is making the run to get open and runs OOB around a screen that put the defender out of the play, call it.

If there is no "play" and they're running to the other side of the court because they decided they'd like to be on the other side our is just running around or they gain nothing by going OOB (a clear and better path was avalailable just inbounds), let it go....especially if it is in the last minute of what sound like was a good game.

Except that is not what happened.

You mean like this one?


9.3.3 SITUATION B:

That's exactly what was described.

The play:
After the basket by team B - team A under back court pressure inbounds the ball, there is man to man pressure in the back court, with the ball being advanced casually by A1 under pressure between the FT line and top of the key.

It also doesn't say the ball is live, that A1 hasn't been previously disqualified, or that this didn't happen during warmups...but we make assumptions on those points.

Common sense must be applied in absence of every little detail being specified. This case play, like many others, assumes a typical situation. How many baseline double screens do you see when the ball is 70+ ft. away?

Do you call 3 seconds on the point guard for being in the top corner of the lane for more than 3 seconds when the ball is being trapped at the division line? Didn't think so.

I'm with you and not calling it based on what's been described by OP. The intent is clearly advantage/disadvantage and if that didn't happen, I've got nothing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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.

In addition to Camron's comments, officiating is just like like any other independent contracting job - we have to meet our clients/customers' expectations if we want to continue working and/or work more. Our clients are the individuals who assign us games.

I love to come here to debate and discuss calling philosophy. I love to debate and discuss it with other officials. But sometime last year, when I came to the realization that this is no different from any other job and if I want to keep doing it I have to please the "boss" first and foremost, how to call the game became much easier for me.

Where there is room for personal interpretation, I apply my personal philosophy. But by asking my assignors and other veteran officials about how the association wants things called, I've taken a lot of chance out of the process and am seeing a lot of success.

My goal was the same at camp - both HS and college - this summer. To ask early on as much as I could from the evaluators to try to get a sense of their philosophies and then do my best to apply them on the court.

In the end there's no reason to believe your philosophy of the game should take precedence over your supervisor's - unless it's something so ingrained and personal to you that you feel you can't violate it, and then you have a decision on whether you want to keep working or not.

I have strong opinions about how the game should be called, but little of that matters when I'm working for someone else.

extreemely well put.

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. ;)

I'm willing to accept that this is looking for snot; I probably wouldn't have made the call unless it looked a lot like a designed press-breaker play.

I'm not going to throw another official under the bus, though, for making this call.

Also very well put Camron.

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

:mad:
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.

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)

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

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

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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 :cool:

-Josh

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.

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....

:rolleyes:

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.

#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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

How has that player NOT gained an 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.

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

"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.