Player(s) leaving the court

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I blame those damn tree huggers.

More than likely it's a budget issue rather than any concerns for the environment.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm sure it's purely inadvertent.

Part of what they teach is inspired by the officiating.

"If they're not gonna call 3 seconds, stay in there." etc.

[Nevadaref]

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.

The committee is also concerned about bench personnel leaving the bench, sometimes during a live ball. Heading into the hallway to get a drink or sitting up in the stands with friends or family, even for a short period of time, are not authorized reasons unless they are medically related. Coaches must ensure that bench personnel remain on the bench.

B. Legal guarding position along a sideline or endline. Last year's editorial change that required a defensive player to obtain legal guarding position while on the playing court met with concerns. In fact, the rule had not changed. Confusion arose regarding a defensive player's movements after legal guarding position was obtained. The committee clarified the long-standing rule that after legal guarding position is obtained; the defender may move to maintain it within the rules. A defender's feet do not have to be on the floor to maintain legal guarding position, whether or not a sideline or endline is involved. As long as the defender obtains legal guarding position while on the court and continues to have inbounds status, a charging foul is called if there is contact deemed a foul.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Actually, I honestly couldn't tell you what color this year's rule book is.

In Illinois, we have gone to a rotation and we only get new books every few years in various sports. Grrrr. Although, we do get a nice sheet of paper that has the changes.

Go online and download a pdf copy.

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Surprised again, as that principle is not in any of the relevant rules.