Called player running OOB the other night
 

First game of the year. Thirty seconds left. Tie ballgame. A1 dribbling the ball out high, running some clock.

I'm L, about midway between lane line and 3-point line (I'm on my right side of the lane), 3-4 feet deep of the endline.

A2 runs right in front of my face, coming from the corner to my right all the way across the lane toward the other corner, running 3 feet off the court the entire way.

A didn't appear to be running a set play. A2 wasn't avoiding a screen. But I blew it, informed A2 of the violation and awarded B the ball.

In an old post on this play, I was on the side of don't call this violation if it's not part of a set play, avoiding a screen, gaining an advantage, etc. In this situation, he was so far off the court for so long, my rationale was that it would be easy for the defense to lose track of him.

Thoughts on this call? I'm pretty sure I'd call it again in the same situation, but I'm also pretty solid that I wouldn't have called it if it hadn't been so blatant/deep/of such length.

You were right there. Seems like a good call. Sounds exactly like why the rule was drawn up.

Curious - Was there a defender following him? Did it have any influence on the outcome of the game? Any bellyaching from the coach?

No - defense was playing a 2-3 zone.

Did it influence outcome? No idea. A fouled B on the subsequent throw-in, B1 missed the front end of the 1-1. Went to OT and A won.

Are you kidding? Of course there was bellyaching from the coach! :D

Very tough decision, IMHO. Last minute of a tie game. Haven't had to call it all night until now. Not going around a screen or getting an advantage, just sort of lost his bearings.

But obvious.

I think I would probably let it go unless he popped open on the other side and got the pass. I know that's more like the college rule, but it seems to fit this particular situation better. I would hate to call something that had literally no effect on the game at that point of that game.

Having said that, I will not fault you for calling an obvious violation. You were there, I wasn't. The purpose of the rule is to keep players inbounds and your player didn't step out for two steps and then come back in. He was OBVIOUSLY in violation.

If the defense is in zone, the offense could have definitely gained in advantage by running this far out of bounds. It could be difficult for the defense to see the offender crossing the court.

Good call!

-Josh

You described all the reasons I'm having any second thoughts at all, Scrapper. The main thing I saw in looking back was that he was so far OOB, it would have been easy for the defense to lose track of him, and it was a blatant violation.

But, I'm certainly open to having this discussion and having my mind changed. Needless to say, it was controversial in the gym! :D

I just cannot imagine officiating in a gym that was not nice and courteous when a call goes against their team ;)

-Josh

Two thoughts:

1) Call the obvious
2) Call what matters

Sometimes a violation is both obvious and matters. But not always.

None of these should have any influence over the calling of a foul or violation.

Only if you're 100% sure it didn't happen earlier in the game.

What if it happened twice earlier, but in front of your partner, and they decided to pass on it because there was no affect on the play, and you decided to call it now?

I understand your point, but I think you're parsing words more than anything else.

No, he's explaining what Scrappy meant. We have to do that sometimes.

If anyone is parsing words on this, it's you.

And I understand your point as well. I agree if it's a violation in the first minute, it should be a violation in the last minute. But we also need to be consistent as a crew, and that was my only point - I hope jdw3018 and their partner were consistent on that call. If it had not happened at any point earlier, I don't have a big problem with making that call, especially if the player was far enough OOB that's it's obvious on tape. But I would have a problem if the team had run that particular play a couple of times previous, and the partner passed on it while jdw3018 calls it at that particular time in the game.

Really good point. I hadn't seen it earlier, and in talking with my partners afterwards neither had seen it and both agreed with the call (for whatever it's worth).

So...consistency wasn't an issue.

Oh, and no doubt the player was far enough out it was obvious on tape - except that he may have been so far out that it would have been out of the frame of the video! ;)

Nobody can parse words: parsing is done to sentences (which are made of words, naturally).

I apologize for pettifogging. :D

I disagreed with Scrapper's point that it was a tough call because it was the last minute of a tie ball game and the call hadn't needed to be made all night.

None of those three (unless you change the context of them, which M&M did with his post) should influence the calling of a foul or violation.

Of course you can change the context of a scenario and make it fit your opinion.

Not meaning to be argumentative, but we didn't know the entire context, so we were inserting possibilities into the scenario. But, to Scrappy's point, let's say we have a tie game, under 1:00 left, A just scored and runs back to play a zone defense, B1 is slowly dribbling the ball up in the backcourt with no pressure. As B1 holds up one hand to signal the play, the hand that's dribbling slides under the ball, and for a brief moment the ball comes to rest before continuing to dribble.

Do you call this violation? There are some that would say it would be a violation early, or in a blowout game, but not in this particular instance, with the game on the line and no apparent advantage gained. Others would say this is a violation, no matter what, no matter how picky. I believe that might be Scrappy's point - <B>sometimes</B> (though rare), the game situation does come into play in what gets called and what doesn't. Yes, theoretically it shouldn't. And I am certainly not an expert as to when it should and shoudn't. But it is something that officials who have progressed seemed to have mastered.

I hear you. No worries.

Ooh, that's a game-interrupter. Right?

1) I'm the R.
2) Shut up.

(Oh, wait, that's something else.)

I certainly don't have a clear handle on what's a "violation no matter what", and what's a "game-interrupter". If I did, I would transcribe it for BillyMac to add to one of his lists. One can usually be safe in calling things "by the book", but we all know there's a difference between being a "Rule Book Ronnie" and calling things as accepted. Sometimes that's taking into account the game situation in making calls.

Obviously, I disagree; otherwise, I wouldn't have written what I did.

Tie game, 30 seconds left. Point guard is unguarded near midcourt dribbling the clock down until they start their final offensive set. As he's standing, not even attempting to advance the ball, he palms the ball and continues dribbling. You calling a violation? Not me.

40 point game, final minute. Center for the losing team sets a back screen without leaving time for the defender to go around it. You haven't had any illegal screens to this point in the game. You calling the foul? Not me.

Final seconds of the game, trailing team scores to cut the lead to 1 point. Defender intentionally steps across the throw-in plane and waves his arms, hoping you'll stop the clock for the delay warning. You stopping the clock? Not me.

I had a long discussion about this principle the other night with my JV partner. We had just had a rules meeting a couple nights before, and the format of the meeting was basically newer officials asking questions that the Varsity officials could answer. When the JV officials ran out of questions, the Varsity officials just started handing out advice on subjects they deemed relevant.

One very well-respected Varsity official raised his hand and said (paraphrased), “Nine times out of ten, 3 seconds is a crap call and all you JV officials need to know that. You guys have to be talking the players out of the lane and if you have a count that is at 2 or 3 and you have a player in the lane who is either about to receive a pass or has the ball, making a move to the basket, or is making at least an attempt to move out of the lane, you hold your whistle.”

My partner and I both had some qualms about this philosophy. I understand that my association wants me to talk players out of fouls (like handchecking) and violations (like 3 seconds) but I don’t understand the principle of setting aside a rule as a whole just because we don’t want the coaches on our back.

What happens when a coach is paying excellent attention to the other team’s offense and he can clearly see that a player is in the lane for 5 or 6 seconds. Regardless of what actions he is performing, according to the rule, he should have been whistled for a violation. What recourse do I have against a coach who is armed with a knowledge of the rules? I can’t just say “Well, Coach, they told us in our meeting that 3 seconds is a crap call.”

Thoughts?

Okay, I hear what you're saying. Although it's hard to hold the whistle when all of those situations are blatantly obvious. You have to call the obvious.

I get tired of the contradiction in terms I hear frequently in regards to officiating. I feel like a lot of times we say things because they sound nice and pretty (call it the same in the last minute as you would in the first) when, in reality, we don't believe at all in what we're saying. We assign absolutes to situations when there are always exceptions.

In the rules meeting the other night, for example, we were told in the SAME MEETING that the rule book is the bible, and we are to stick to it so we are consistent as an association. Then in that SAME MEETING we are fed this load of crap about 3 seconds. Why don't our rule interpreters just dispense with the bull%*# and give it to us straight?

Is 3 seconds a crap call? Nope, there are plenty of players that would love to take advantage of that philosophy, and they would have an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. Is calling 3 seconds while the post player has one foot on the lane line, the other outside the lane, and you just got to 3? Yep, that would be a crap call. By rule, it might be correct, but most officials would say that is not the intent of the rule. Just the mere fact the rules state "Allowance shall be made..." seems to indicate there is leeway in making this call. Do you see an allowance being made for the violation of stepping on a boundary line?

Now, I don't necessarily agree with your V-official who mentioned not to call it if the player is about to receive a pass; the other statements I don't have a big problem with. In fact, making a move towards the basket is one of those allowances, correct? I think what they were perhaps trying to get across is the fact that many new officials seem to over-call this violation, when it's better to see the whole play.

It's still muddy to me. But I'm sure that's what learning to be an official is all about. As the years pass on, the muddy becomes clear.

Fixed it for you. ;)

fiasco, here's my $ .02. The most important thing with anything borderline is to be generally consistent with other refs in your area, so that a player knows ahead of time what to expect. I work in one rec league where we're supposed to call 3 seconds at 3 seconds regardless. Period. Everyone calls it that way and if we don't we get in trouble. In the high school ball I do, I'd get booed off the floor by other refs if I called that way. There's a much broader interpretation of "illegal advantage" as the operative phrase.

I personally would like to see certain rules called differently than they are around here (like 3 seconds!) but I don't have the authority to make that happen, and until it does, I can't just please my own interpretation. If I only do it MY WAY, it's not fair to the players.

Any rule is fair if it's called the same way for both sides, and if all the players know what's going on. It's one of the things that makes regional and state play-off games a little tricky. Refs and players have more adjusting to do.

If you really strongly disagree with the rules, you should lobby hard to change them, or change the interp that';s used. But you can't just do it your way. I think what Scrapper and M&M are saying is that they have adjusted to their level of play in their area and the way they are expected to call things. You sound like the sort of person who can do the same and learn to fit in. THat's the best way to be a good ref. Cooperation.

Well said.

By the way, hi Juulie!

Actually, the "allowance" is pretty specific: "Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than three seconds, dribbles in or moves immediately to try for goal."

Or if I haven't called 3 seconds in 2 years and don't want to upset my streak. :D

I think I just heard Juulie scratching you from her Christmas card list for being one of "those guys" :D

My P gave an interesting captain's meeting yesterday. After dismissing the coaches he turns to the players (girls JV game) and says, "Just one thing, sportsmanship. Ladies don't cuss, right? (they all nod) And we're not throwing the ball down tonight, right? (they all nod) Great! I haven't called a T in four years and I don't want to ruin my record tonight." The game went very smoothly. :)

What is the rule number for this topic? (Running out of bounds to avoid a screen)

9-3-3

I concur.

I totally disagree with your V partners advice. If a player has camped out in the lane, ignored my infamous, "Don't stand in the lane", and now has a pass coming to him/her then he/she has just gained a huge advantage. I usually try to hold the whistle until I'm convinced the player jsu won't hear me telling them to move or when the pass is headed their way.