Player(s) leaving the court
 

NFHS. 9-3-3 says "A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason." The case book talks about a player leaving the floor to avoid a pick by the opponent or to use a pick set by a teammate(s) or to stop the clock to negate an advantage by the opponent. Illustration 9-3-3 shows a player going out of bounds to brush a defender into a screen set by teammates. What if a player is running his offense, passing to a guard at the top of the key or to a wing near the endline then running through the zone and wandering out of bounds on the back side of a zone? He's not scraping a defender into a screen, he's simply running through the zone, dipping anywhere from a foot to as much as three feet beyond the end line, running 3-5 steps out of bounds then entering the other side of the court, similar to the arc shown on NFHS Simplified and Illustrated Illustration 9-3-3 without any screens/picks. Is that a violation? Where is "unauthorized reason" defined? Would you call it?

I titled this "Player(s)..." (plural) because it happened several times with different players. I warned the first time ("Stay on the court!") then called a violation the next time. Subsequently, they continued to do the same thing so I warned 2-3 times more (didn't want to over-officiate) but finally called another violation. Partner said I shouldn't call it - it wasn't a violation. He also said he was coached to set a pick with one foot out-of-bounds (clearly, not just foot on the line) to force an opponent who wanted to go around the screen to go out-of-bounds. Would you call that on the screener if you saw it?

:rolleyes:Do you have a foul maximum? Say 20 for the game? anymore than that and you're 'over officiating'? :-)

One foot out of bounds, I'd probably let it go if it's the player running through the lane. If he's got both feet out, go ahead and call it. I don't mind you warning once before you call it, but I wouldn't revert to a warning again once you've called it.

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.

I'll also add that if a player sets a screen with a foot out of bounds, this might be a violation as well. He's purposefully leaving the court and getting an advantage. I'll have to think on this one.

And I don't care how your partner was coached.
1. Rules change.
2. Coaches teach against the rules all the time.

What?
 

Shocked I tell ya. Shocked, I am! :p

I'm sure it's purely inadvertent.

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.

Good points, JR... noted.

Assuming the coach can tell me what color the rule book is this year.

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

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.

I agree that it is good game management to try to talk the players out of leaving the floor, but if they don't listen, you gotta use the whistle. If they are going to continue to travel, you don't stop calling travelling do you? If you don't call it, why would they stop?

As far as the screener, I'd ignore it, but if there is contact on the screen, it would be illegal as the player does not have both feet on the playing court. I would guess after you call the illegal screen once or twice, the coach would change the way his players are setting that screen, at least for the rest of the night.

I called this for the first time this year. It happened in a BV game where A1 was going around a screen that was set right under the basket. He was a good 2-3 feet outside of the endline, then he came back in and caught a pass and started a try. I hit the whistle and called the violation, and to my surprise, A's coach didn't say a word.

Probably because he thought you called the dreaded "first to touch" violation.

Like Mark Padgett, Lives In Washington, They're All Hippy Tree Huggers Out There ...
 

I blame those damn tree huggers.

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

Part of what they teach is inspired by the officiating.

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

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.

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.

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.

Go online and download a pdf copy.

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.

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

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?

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

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.