Player(s) leaving the court

[tjones1]

Yes, it's a violation....and I would call it too. Good call.

Player with a foot on the line I probably wouldn't call. If he had both feet on the line, I might call it... I'd have to see it... I'm not sure what advantage the player would be gaining by doing so.. but if they did, I would call it.

Agree with Snaq, once you've warned them and then call it... continue calling it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Player with a foot on the line I probably wouldn't call. If he had both feet on the line, I might call it... I'd have to see it... I'm not sure what advantage the player would be gaining by doing so.. but if they did, I would call it.

Is the player setting the screen OOB legally or illegally? If you feel that the kid is gaining an advantage by setting the screen with a foot OOB, call him for being OOB illegally and give him a "T" for purposely delaying his return. You can make the language of 10-3-2 fit the call. It's always a judgment call if you feel that the player is OOB illegally, and/or is delaying their return.

Irregardless...if there's any contact at all though, it would be an automatic block for an illegal screen. And I'd mention that to the coach right after his player told me that he was being coached to set screeens with a foot OOB.

[tjones1]

Good points, JR... noted.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Is the player setting the screen OOB legally or illegally? If you feel that the kid is gaining an advantage by setting the screen with a foot OOB, call him for being OOB illegally and give him a "T" for purposely delaying his return. You can make the language of 10-3-2 fit the call. It's always a judgment call if you feel that the player is OOB illegally, and/or is delaying their return.

I believe that the OOB violation is most appropriate here as the offensive team would lose possession. That was the intent of the NFHS committee when changing the penalty from a T to a violation.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Irregardless...if there's any contact at all though, it would be an automatic block for an illegal screen. And I'd mention that to the coach right after his player told me that he was being coached to set screeens with a foot OOB.

1. Regardless is the proper word.
2. I don't agree that the screen is automatically illegal and a block due to the player's OOB positioning. If you check the rules book, you will see that the requirement to maintain inbounds status is for GUARDING (4-23), not SCREENING (4-40). Therefore, the proper call is an OOB violation on the screener per 9-3-3, and hence, the ball becomes immediately dead at that point and there is no foul unless the contact is intentional or flagrant.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. I don't agree that the screen is automatically illegal and a block due to the player's OOB positioning. If you check the rules book, you will see that the requirement to maintain inbounds status is for GUARDING (4-23), not SCREENING (4-40). ....

This one surprised me. Why wouldn't 9-3-3 apply to screening?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This one surprised me. Why wouldn't 9-3-3 apply to screening?

It does. The text of 4-23 does not. So what I am saying is that an violation for leaving the court under 9-3-3 should be called in the situation of a player setting a screen with one foot clearly OOB instead of penalizing this with a blocking foul. Does that make sense to you? Afterall, you are our resident language guy.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It does. The text of 4-23 does not. So what I am saying is that an violation for leaving the court under 9-3-3 should be called in the situation of a player setting a screen with one foot clearly OOB instead of penalizing this with a blocking foul. Does that make sense to you? Afterall, you are our resident language guy.

Yes, it makes sense. And "after all" is two words.

So here's a question for you: on the screen you're calling a 9-3-3 violation, but in a guarding situation you're calling a block. But the guard stepped out before contacting the dribbler, and thus violated 9-3-3 too. Why wouldn't you call a 9-3-3 violation for both?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Yes, it makes sense. And "after all" is two words.

I did not know that. I learned something. Thank you.

Originally Posted by mbyron

So here's a question for you: on the screen you're calling a 9-3-3 violation, but in a guarding situation you're calling a block. But the guard stepped out before contacting the dribbler, and thus violated 9-3-3 too. Why wouldn't you call a 9-3-3 violation for both?

Because the screener is generally positioned OOB for a longer period of time prior to contact occurring than a guard is.

IMO the time lag is an important factor.