Player(s) leaving the court

[hawk65]

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?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by hawk65

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?

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

[Adam]

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.

[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.

[Adam]

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

2. Coaches teach against the rules all the time.

Shocked I tell ya. Shocked, I am!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Shocked I tell ya. Shocked, I am!

I'm sure it's purely inadvertent.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Shocked I tell ya. Shocked, I am!

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