Called player running OOB the other night

[jdw3018]

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.

[grunewar]

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?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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!

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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!

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

[Scrapper1]

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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!

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Needless to say, it was controversial in the gym!

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

-Josh

[Back In The Saddle]

Two thoughts:

1) Call the obvious
2) Call what matters

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

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Last minute

tie game.

Haven't had to call it all night until now.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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?