Anyone ever called this?

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

RE: Casebook 9.3.3c

A2, A3 set double screen for A1 to go for a 3ball.

B1 steps out of bounds to go around the double screen, and they get back in as A1 shoots it.

The ruling is it's a violation on B. A gets the ball at the POI, unless the shot goes in, then it's ignored.

Has anyone ever called this violation in a game on any level?

Thanks!

(Note: also posted on NFHS FORUM)

Where does it say the violation is ignored if the try is successful?

9.3.3 SITUATION C: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3's try is in flight. RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

-Josh

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Where does it say the violation is ignored if the try is successful?

-Josh

If the violation is to be enforced all the time, then the ball would become dead immediately. This is a violation, not a foul. Please name for me a violation by the defense, not a foul, that allows both the score and the violation to be penalized.

I can understand why you think this is to be enforced; But this is one of the, if not the only, violation by the defense where the ball does not become dead immediately. It has such status for a reason.

Is this violation by the defense so bad that your penalize the defense by allowing the goal, and giving the offense the ball again? Is it really on the level of an intentional or technical foul?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

If the violation is to be enforced all the time, then the ball would become dead immediately.

Not true. See 6-7 Excp d.

This is a violation, not a foul. Please name for me a violation by the defense, not a foul, that allows both the score and the violation to be penalized.

Swinging the elbows and leaving the court.

Is this violation by the defense so bad that your penalize the defense by allowing the goal, and giving the offense the ball again? Is it really on the level of an intentional or technical foul?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. If you're asking what the rule *IS*, then you're wrong. If you're asking what the rule *SHOULD BE*, then I would tend to agree with you.

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not true. See 6-7 Excp d.



"Swinging the elbows and leaving the court."



I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. If you're asking what the rule *IS*, then you're wrong. If you're asking what the rule *SHOULD BE*, then I would tend to agree with you.

Bob,

I stand by my statement even knowing the exception you and the other kind responder quoted.

Have you ever seen or heard of a defensive player being called for a violation of swinging their elbows instead of a foul? Would you call that violation in a game?

I'm sorry, I need to have someone on the Rules Committee or a state interpreter tell me that if the defense goes out of bounds that NFHS wants the goal counted and the violation enforced. That level of punishment is not given to the offense for the same violation, when the advantage gained by the offensive player is much greater than the defense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I'm sorry, I need to have someone on the Rules Committee or a state interpreter tell me that if the defense goes out of bounds that NFHS wants the goal counted and the violation enforced.

I have to ask, why isn't the case play enough?

BTW, you're really asking two separate questions, it seems.
1. Has anyone called it? I haven't called it, but I would if I saw it. Rebounders don't swing their elbows, as a rule, until they get the ball. And defenders don't step out of bounds. I've never actually seen it.

2. Is it really what the Fed wants?

[lloybra]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have to ask, why isn't the case play enough?

BTW, you're really asking two separate questions, it seems.
1. Has anyone called it? I haven't called it, but I would if I saw it. Rebounders don't swing their elbows, as a rule, until they get the ball. And defenders don't step out of bounds. I've never actually seen it.

2. Is it really what the Fed wants?

1. Yes, I've called it, and it has nothing to do with having the ball or not. See RULE 9-13-1: "A player shall not excessively swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s), even without contacting an opponent." It says nothing about where the ball is.

2. It is what NFHS wants; that is why they put it in the rule book. If you wait to call a foul when contact is made, injury is a likely consequence. Also see RULE 4-24-8 where in reference to this rule NFHS states "...an official will promptly and unhesitatingly call such action with arms and elbows a violation."

[Adam]

FWIW, I agree with you; waiting on jkumpire's response.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I'm sorry, I need to have someone on the Rules Committee or a state interpreter tell me that if the defense goes out of bounds that NFHS wants the goal counted and the violation enforced.

The Rules Committee did tell you. And you cited it in your original post--->casebook play 9.3.3SitC.

It doesn't matter whether you like or agree with any rule. All you're expected to do is call it.

WOBW.

[Adam]

jk, there are other violations where the call is delayed and or enforced along with the basket. If a defensive player is swinging his elbows during a try that is successful, you penalize by counting the basket and giving the ball to A at the spot nearest the violation.

If, on a fast break for A, B1 steps out of bounds to try to draw the violation; you hold your whistle and wait for the shot attempt before killing the play. You then call the violation, count the basket, and give A the ball at the spot where B1 stepped OOB.