spirit of the rule

[OHBBREF]

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

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?

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

[chartrusepengui]

great call and yes, I'd make it.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

The Game:
the player clearly went OOB with knowledge to make it to the other side of the floor.

This is the only relevant portion of your case play.

Everything else is just noise.

[truerookie]

No brainer, good call.

[jdw3018]

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...

[Camron Rust]

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.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Except that is not what happened.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

With the ball still in the backcourt under pressure near the FT line/top of the key opposite

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Except that is not what happened.

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.

[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.