Anyone ever called this?
 

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)

Nope.
 

I've called a violation on a player for being out of bounds exactly twice. Once running down the court out of bounds on the sideline and another running a good deal of the endline out of bounds. That is all. It's been a rare one for me.

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

-Josh

I've called this violation exactly once, this year, on the offense (a weird year for me).

A1 had the ball near the sideline in his FC, trapped by two defenders and the sideline, but had not used his dribble yet.

He takes the ball and bounces it towards his endline, behind the defender, then runs OOB quickly to get around the defender before stepping in bounds to retrieve the ball. It stunned me for a second as I tried to determine whether he got IB before touching the ball; then I realized it didn't matter.

Josh, read the play
 

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?

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.

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.

Bob
 

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.

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?

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.

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."

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

Back to the OP. A player runs baseline as part of the offense and steps OOB ... how many of you call this a violation on the offense?

I called a violation in a BV game last night on the offense for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. Two of team A's players went OOB on the endline when I was Lead. I think one of them ran into someone and he barely went out, but his teammate went around both of them and almost ran me over, and I was standing a good 3-4 feet off of the endline.

Just steps once on the line? I pass...and likely don't even see it.

Runs completely OOB? I've called it.

Actually, the ruling says that Team A gets the ball out of bounds nearest the spot of the violation and not the point of interruption. And as others have said, even with a made basket, Team A will get the ball back and the violation is NOT ignored.

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)

Well
 

When you are a majority of one in a case like this, you probably have to change your opinion. But I still believe this is a mistake by the rules committee.

Now that's a debate to be had, I think.

Frankly, I like the idea of hitting the defense that hard if they're swinging elbows during a rebound. And if a knucklehead steps OOB to try to draw the violation and stop a fast break, calling it per the rules will stop him from doing it again.

Frankly, I think the defensive violations that would lead to this are both such that they warrant the penalty prescribed in the rules.

Make it two. I'd equate it to a delayed lane violation on the defense, free throw shooter making the free throw, and then getting another one due to the violation.

I don't believe that's correct. If the FT is made, the violation is disregarded - 9-1 PENALTIES 2a.

That's what I'm saying-similar violations resulting in a scored hoop.

One situation ignores the violation.

The other penalizes it.

M&M, I think he's stating how the two are different and what would happen if they were made the same. I'm not sure, though.

Free throw violations are simply different than standard violations, by rule. As I said previously, I have no problem penalizing the elbow violation by rule in this case. It's a safety issue and should be dealt with.

As far as the leaving the court, no problem with that either. For me to call it, it needs to be deliberate, obvious, and completely out of bounds. Call it and it'll only happen once.

That said, there are situations where I'd ignore it.

Gotcha. I thought you might have been saying the shooter gets another shot due to the violation, even on a made FT.

Never mind.

I've only called this once: middle school tournament, warned a HS varsity player after he stepped out to stay on the court.

From a safety standpoint, I'm OK with the swinging elbows violation by the defense still allowing the score, and the offense gains another possession although I think I've got a chance to see my first multiple foul before I ever see that scenario.

I'm w/JK on the leaving the floor penalty. Bad rule.