Violation?
 

Interesting situation happened last night. I was at a Varsity game and an official made a violation call that I've never seen before! A24 runs down the baseline but runs about 2 feet out of bounds... Lead official blows the whistle and waives his hand along the baseline and says "you cant do that 24" then points to the opposite end of the court.

I was kind of set back by this one!

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. Used to be a technical, now it's a violation.

Edit: I guess it is a technical still if it is to show "resentment or disgust".

my understanding of the rule is that if you run out of bounds to get clear from your defender it is a technical foul. I believe that was a rule that was implemented just a few years ago.

I haven't seen anywhere that it is a violation

It used to be a technical foul, but it is now a violation. Check Rule 9 for violations, it is in there. I don't have the exact reference since my books are in the car in my bag.

If you were just going to tell me in your first response that it's a technical foul, why ask in the first place?

rule 9-3-3.... A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.

PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is
awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds
spot nearest the violation.

Breakdown Lane Ticket ...
 

Had it once. Kid ran around a screen and almost knocked me over as the lead. Have warned a few times, but only had it called once.

Are you an official? It was changed a few years ago. Gotta keep up with those rule changes.

I've had it once as well, back when it was a T. Kid runs OB for 10', defender stays IB. OB kid uses a screen to set up a trey, and all in a tournament championship game.

Easiest call all night.

I have not ever had to call the violation, but I do make a note to remind a player if in his backdoor cuts, he has a habit of a foot touching the line.

I make this call 5 or 6 times a season. I made it once when it was still a T.

Had it once in a game. Player would run out of bounds between the thrower and defender during throw-ins. Didn't even make sense. :confused:

That, of course, is a throw-in voilation. :D

I've only called it once (players tend to stay on the court where I play). Had a player after a throw in run from one corner to the other and spend about 20 feet of it out of bounds to avoid traffic in the lane.

Haha yeah, he violated twice at the same time. :p

I've yet to make this call but it is still early in my career.

It will confound the fans and keep them from yelling '3 seconds' for a couple trips up and down the court.

The fans are experts at the 3 second rule.:)

You're lucky, the ones around here are "experts" at every rule! :)

Had this happen in a game of mine a couple of weeks back. 9th grade Boys, A2 ran OOB on the endline for about 5-6 steps before coming back inbounds to receive a pass.

Partner whistled for the violation (I was the Trail, so I didn't see it happen). Coach went nuts (of course, he was "making comments himself" all night). As my partner was about to administer the throw-in, A2 decided to add in his own comment "You gotta learn the rules, ref". WHACK.

I am an official...and actually usually pride myself on studying the rule book. I'm only a second year official, but that's not an excuse. I should stop listening to ppl that don't quote the rules to me...I broke my own rule!

Thanks for the imput. I got lazy on this one and asked before researching!

A question for the vets.

If you see an offensive player running OOB, do you generally whistle it immediately, or wait until he gains an advantage of it (i.e., gets the ball)?

The action you describe on the part of A2 is still a T if you don't catch it until he comes back inbounds to receive the pass (4-19-14 & 10-3-6). The idea is to call the violation as soon as player leaves the court so you don't have to call a T when they return. It's also a T for a player to purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning to the court after being legally out of bounds. (10-3-2).

Three words.


Don't think so.

You are incorrect. The action is leaving for an unauthorized reason period. You can't apply the bolded portion because the player was never legally out of bounds. He was out of bounds for an unauthorized reason which is not a legal reason to be out of bounds. That portion applies to a thrower who decides he wants to hang out of bounds after the throw-in has been completed.

Great, great attitude. Big ups!

Never said it did - I specifically said it applied to a player legally out of bounds. That said, ask yourself if the throw in is the only situation where a player can be legally out of bounds.

I'm confused too, Tim. what rule are you going to use the call the "T" when they return? You can't use 10-3-2 because that's only applicable to players who are legally OOB, not illegally OOB.

Ah no, it's not. It's a violation, period. It doesn't matter if he gets inbounds before you blow the whistle. You're wrong.

Nope, it's not. But that doesn't make you right on your interpretation of the rule.

4-19-14
An unsporting foul is a non-contact technical foul which consists
of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

10-3-6 -
note the language "Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts
or conduct such as:"

The FED has unequivocally stated that the game is to be played within the confines of the court. If a player intentionally leaves the court & returns to gain an advantage, that is clearly not in accordance with the spirit of fair play and a violation of 4-19-14.

As I said, the violation needs to be called right away, every time (except as specified in 6-7-9-d & 9.3.3 Sit D). If it is, then this becomes a moot point. If we wait until he comes back on to the court & gets the ball, then we have different circumstances - and it's the fault of the official for not calling the violation when they should have.

Rule 10-3-6 and 4-19-14 are deliberately left open-ended by the rulesmakers because you couldn't possibly list every unsporting act you might encounter. So it is true that you could maybe stretch things a heckuva lot and assess a "T" in this case using those rules. However doing that is going against the purpose and intent of the rule imo. And methinks you might have one heckuva time trying to sell that call to anybody else also. When they changed the call for the exact play in the original post back in 2005-06 from a technical foul to a violation, they did so because they felt that not enough officials were calling the "T" because the penalty was too extreme. They lessened the penalty to a violation so more of us would start calling this kind of play. And it has worked imo. So, what you're suggesting is almost like going back to the original rule. Basically, you're advocating changing the penalty for the illegal act just because an official was late calling it. I'd suggest a better idea would be to still call the violation when the player came back in, even though that call might be way late. That still will satisfy the purpose and intent of the rule imo. Thoughts?

From the 2005-06 rulebook...
LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION:
The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, the play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the liklihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

That's why they made it a violation, so we could/would make them stop doing it. One could make the same argument about a player intentionally palming the ball on his dribble to gain an advantage. Try calling a T for that.


Right, it needs to be called right away, like any other violation. If the guy above palmed the dribble, beat his defender, then dribbled it off his foot and out of bounds, that also would be a moot point. But if he beats his man and is about to score the winning basket, it still ain't a technical foul.

SO as I understand it, and my understanding is limited to FIBA which says something . . .

If a defender comes out to help and try to draw a charge, if they were to put their foot on the end line/sideline purposefully they would be out of bounds and committing a violation?

My understanding is this is meant for players completely leaving the court; not stepping on the line.

There's no point in stretching 10-3-6 here, just call the violation per rule. We have late whistles on fouls, travels, and even OOB lines all the time. My late whistle does not mean the player was legally OOB; it just means my whistle was late.

Sometimes their time OOB is so short it's almost impossible to call it right away.

This just doesn't apply unless that player is running out a door, down the hall, and back in at the other end of the court.

Running OOB near the court is clear a violation and a violation only. 10-3-6 should not be applied to things already covered in a different rule.

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that this we need to call this violation every time as soon as is practicable. Yes I understand that occasionally the whistle may be slightly delayed for a variety of reasons, but we shouldn't wait for some perceived advantage - going OOB to avoid a defender or screen is gaining an advantage.

Yes the link to 4-19-14 is tenuous, and I agree that it would be difficult to sell, but it is there. I agree that even late, the violation would be the better call.

Would I T a player for this? No, but I'm not going to wait to see why they left the court either - as soon as I see them illegally OOB I'm going to blow the whistle. This isn't a judgment or advantage/disadvantage call - it's no different than a player with the ball stepping on a boundary line - we should call it every time.

Besides, things were a little dull here and I decided to stir it up a little - looks like it worked! I figured chseagle need a little rest.....:D:D

I did actually have this call result in a T once last season. Player went OOB to get around a defender & I called the violation. His coach stood up and screamed "You're the only two in the gym that know that rule - you're just trying to make us lose!" He got the T.

Bad Tim!

Bad, bad Tim. :D:D

Fwiw, I agree with what you just wrote also.

"Coach, what you player did is a violation. But because I didn't call it immediately, now it's a technical foul."

Sorry Tim but that's makes no sense. More importantly, you're trying to spin and twist the rules to support YOUR interpretation.

9-3-3 - player runs out of bounds for unauthorized reason. Violation.

10.3.2a - The player who has just thrown the ball in on a thowin, stays out of bounds and recieves pass. This is a technical foul.

These two rules/cases happen basically the same way except for the fact that the player recieving the pass is in one case the inbounding player on a thowin. Usually the offensive team is setting up a endline pick play and the offending player is using the pick by running out of bounds. If the player is the inbounder then it is a techincal foul and if it is not on an inbounds play then it is a violation.

Last year in one game, I called it 2 times and my partner once against the same team. The play was set up wrong and it was pretty obvious. The lead would almost get run over by the cutter. Very easy call if you are aware that it is a violation.

The last game I worked I had a situation where there was a battle for the ball and I was trail-becoming lead and I was moving onto the court to view the battle for the ball but then back toward the sidline once the play started to move to the other end and a player was passing me and went outside me and probably out of bounds but I was not going to make that call since he was just trying not to run into me. I will call this an 'authorized reason' for breifly going out of bounds.

With a restraining line...
 

We sort of had this in a game earlier this year, but for us it was a restraining line violation. A1 was behind the end line, but A2 ran inside the restraining line during the throw in.

After that, I stepped out 3 feet and stood so I could also look down the restraining line on in-bounds plays for the rest of the game.

Tiny little gyms in south central Iowa. :D

I grew up in such a gym; 30 miles NE of Des Moines. My first experience as an official with an actual restraining line, however was at a small Baptist school in Des Moines.

I seem to recall a case where that's legal -- and then the defense can cross the restraining line as well.

I think it depends exactly when it happens during the throw-in. By rule, the restraining line is a boundary line until the throw-in crosses the boundary line. At that time the restraining line disappears and the regular boundary line comes back into play. Sound right to you?

Yep....1-2-2.............This restraining line becomes the boundary line during a throw-in on that side or end, as in 7-6. It continues to be the boundary until the ball crosses the line.

Case 7.6.4D(b) (last year's reference, but the case is in this year's book as well)

I looked at that one also but there is no actual restraining line per se in that case play, just an imaginary one set by the official that is 1 step inside the boundary line. They are similar in that you do basically use the one-step estimate as an imaginary restraining/boundary line, and the defense can't break that restraining/boundary line until the ball is released on the throw-in pass.

Neither can the offense. Well, they can't cross it anyway.