Bump and Run
 

Looking for and easy explaination of "Bump and Run"...

Thanks!

Basketball Officiating Mechanics ... - Google Books

This not only explains it...but, has illustrations.

Page 55

Used when the team A violates in their FC -- so B will inbound in their BC "going long".

Old L/New T moves across the court to the inbound spot and BUMPS the Old T/New L who now RUNS down court.

No "long" changes - with one official running the entire length of the court. You bump your partner and to avoid the long change.

When In Rome ???
 

There are exceptions. Trail has backcourt call, which obviously occurs in the backcourt, on his side of the basket line. That's his line, and the violation is near his line, so he will administer the throwin and become the new trail. The old lead will run the length of the court and become the new lead.

Is that an exception in Connecticut? This sounds like a classic bump and run situation. And IMO, it looks better than having the old lead run the length of the court.

So, when the trail calls a travel on his side of the court, or OOB, or illegal dribble, you let the old lead run down and become the new lead? Wow, Rome sure is a weird place.

Only in A's backcourt.

Only in "Rec" ball, and you're working with a new guy who doesn't know any better.

In Federation 2 or 3 person, and NCAA, it's a classic "bump 'n run" situation. As Trail official calling the violation, you should be looking for the old lead official coming toward you, toss the ball in his/her direction, and immediately head for the endline to become the new lead official.

Classic bump-and-run in my world.

I think you're all misreading Billy's post.

The play is a violation IN the backcourt on the trail's sideline...and it was a violation on the offensive team (backcourt violation...but could have easily been a travel or any other violation). The trail will administer that throwin, on the sideline, with the old lead running coast to coast. It is only offensive violations on the trail's side in the frontcourt that causes a bump-n-run.

That's still a classic bump-and-run in my world.

By The Book ...
 

Unless the mechanic of administering on your own line has changed over the years, I'm talking about a "by the book" mechanic. Over the years I have found this mechanic to be easily confused by both rookies, and veterans, thus I think Butterfly182310's comment is the most important in the thread: You should be looking for the old lead official coming toward you, toss the ball in his/her direction, and immediately head for the endline to become the new lead official.

As long as you make eye contact with your partner, and make the mechanic look smooth, nobody will notice whether you do it by the book, or not. We don't want both to run down to the endline to become the new lead, with nobody to administer, and we don't want both hanging around as the new trail fighting over one basketball.

I don't recall a coast to coast switch on a violation ever having been proper mechanics.

Federation 2 person... It doesn't matter if it's front court or back court. It doesn't matter which sideline the throw-in is coming from. Old trail becomes new lead. Old lead becomes new trail. Forcing old lead to become new lead just delays the resumption of play while he gets into position. Seems to make more sense for both officials to reposition simultaneously by going half the length of the court rather then waiting for one official to travel the entire length of the court.

The only time I can see going from lead to lead is if play has drawn both officials to be nearly opposite each other. Then the trail official might give his/her partner a nod, sending them to the opposite endline, rather than coming across the court. Still wouldn't be "proper" mechanic though.

Now, if you're working with someone who doesn't move real well, and you want to help him out, go ahead and run the length. You'll have a greatfull partner. Just realize that if you get into that habit, you could look like a Chinese Fire Drill when you work with someone else.

From An Old Veteran's Viewpoint ...
 

As I previously posted, unless the mechanic has changed over the years, and that is certainly possible, since our local board has switched from NFHS, to IAABO mechanics, over the past few years, the "by the book" mechanic used to be to always administer your own line, that is to say, your new own line.

Of course, IAABO has mucked up the definition of "your own line", which is a separate problem for a separate thread.

Watch Me Fire Up The Afterburners ...
 

Waiting? You haven't seen me run. I'm a gazelle, I tell you. A gazelle. My partner blinks, and I'm already there.

Billy, do you have the blue IAABO book? I'm looking at page 50 of the two-person mechanics manual, and it doesn't distinguish between FC and BC when it tells you to bump-n-run.

Not correct. Line coverage is determined before the violation, not after.

If the violation occurs in the old FC on the old lead's sideline, the old lead takes it.
If the violation occurs in the old BC on the old lead's sideline, the old trail takes it.
If the violation occurs in the old FC on the old trail's sideline, the old trail takes it.
If the violation occurs in the old BC on the old trail's sideline, the old trail takes it.

In all cases, the "other" official boxes in....perhaps causing a coast-to-coast.

Bump and run ONLY occurs when the new throwin spot is in the new backcourt on the old trail's sideline.

The case where it causes a coast-to-coast for the old-lead -> new lead is rare.

There isn't a single instance where I'm going to stay with the ball and watch my partner run past me to the other end of the floor. However, I'm simply not sure whether we're even talking about the same thing anymore. Yes, there are inbounds situations where there will not be a true bump and run, but the old lead should never have to run past his partner and be the new lead -- this doesn't happen.

Six states for me now and we've all handled this situation exactly the same. None, thank goodness, were IAABO states.

I've only done two states, 50% of which are IAABO, and looking at the IAABO mechanics, Billy's got this one wrong.

I've have always been taught to bump and run on all of these, but the one in red just doesn't make sense.

You've got one guy, essentially running straight across the court for the throwin while the other guy runs a crossing route to the other end when the throw-in was on his sideline. The Old/New Lead could use the Old/New Trail as a pick if he wanted to on this

The only time I don't B&R is when the violation occurs right in front of the Old Trail in a situation where the Old Lead hasn't gone too far down the court. This is typically in a press or short-lived transition situation. Even then, it's understood that it's not proper mechanic.

If you don't bump-and-run, you're essentially creating a switch on a non-foul situation.

I have always thought that this is the correct process:

1. Is it a shooting foul?
If yes, calling official becomes trail.
If no, go to 2.

2. Is it a non-shooting foul?
If yes, officials switch "vertically".
If no, go to 3.

3. Is the spot in the "new" backcourt?
If yes, old lead (or new trail, if not involving change in possession) becomes new trail and administers throw-in.
If no, go to 4.

4. If 1-3 do not apply (that is, no foul involved and throw-in in the "new" frountcourt), the official who has responsiblity for that line administers the throw-in.
If this requires a "switch" from trail to lead, so be it. Sideline throw-ins below the free throw line extended may be administered by lead or trail.



Any of these incorrect? Any situations missed?

Let me clean up my statements...they were a bit incomplete...

If you're going by the book...


NON-TURNOVER (new/old trail takes all BC throw-ins and trail's FC sideline, remains trail)

• If the violation occurs in the old FC on the old lead's sideline, the old lead takes it.
• If the violation occurs in the old BC on the old lead's sideline, the old trail takes it.
• If the violation occurs in the old FC on the old trail's sideline, the old trail takes it.
• If the violation occurs in the old BC on the old trail's sideline, the old trail takes it.

TURNOVER (old-lead/new-trail takes all throw-ins in the new backcourt and all throw-ins on their sideline)

• If the violation occurs in the old FC on the old lead's sideline, the old lead takes it.
• If the violation occurs in the old BC on the old lead's sideline, the old lead takes it.
• If the violation occurs in the old FC on the old trail's sideline, the old lead takes it. (bump/run)
• If the violation occurs in the old BC on the old trail's sideline, the old trail takes it. (lead goes coast to coast....switch just like a violation in the new frontcourt on the lead's sideline above the FT line)

Thanks, I Think ...
 

I think that you're agreeing with me. NFHS, IAABO, or other?

Since the bump and run is only in effect for turnovers, I cut out the rest. For some reason, though, this list makes more sense to me than the last one. I still hadn't heard of the coast-to-coast exception for old BC violations. We do bump and run on that here, and the way I read the IAABO manual, we're doing it correctly.

Okay, Billy, I have to ask. Have you looked at the current IAABO manual? The example on page 50 is for an old FC violation, but there's no exception given for a violation in the old BC. The exception on page 51, however, seems to be for a quick transition play. But this seems to be, effectively, a defensive violation (not a turnover). This is really an extension of the principal of creating a switch when there is a defensive violation in the FC creating a throw-in along the old lead's sideline above the FT line extended.

BTW, is there a place other than these illustrations that lays out the principals for this?

NFHS only prescribes the bump and run when the throwin will be in the new backcourt. Otherwise, you administer throw-ins on your line.

No, Snaqs, it is not only in effect on turn overs, it is a bump and run anytime there is a throwin that goes to the backcourt sideline opposite the trail...perhaps in a pressing situation where the ball is knocked OOB by the defense on the lead's line.

Here is the NFHS mechanic from the book

NFHS Manual #128

c. Backcourt. The new trail official shall adminster all throw-ins in the backcourt and may need to change sides of the court ("bump and run") depending on the throw-in spot. If a quick violation or out-of-bounds situation occurs in a team's backcourt and reverses the direction of play so that the throw-in team is in its frontcourt, the ball will be in-bounded by the official responsible for that boundary line as in a frontcourt throw-in above (b).

I guess I didn't consider it a bump and run if it's on my (trail) line and I'm not changing sides of the court. I've made the call, and I'm administering the throwin. I can see how it might look like it, though.

IAABO Two Person Manual Page 51 ...
 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/...f258c2ce_m.jpg

"During fast break situation, ball out of bounds on Lead's sideline. Lead administers throwin as new Trail. Trail becomes new Lead."

Not in our world. We'd still bump and run this.

They call it, my line, my call, my ball here. First time a partner pulled that one on me here, I thought they were screwin' with the new guy. To me it's bump and run but when in Rome...

We would, but we shouldn't. ;)

New trail has all throw-ins in the back court (bump and run). Otherwise, the official responsible for the line has the throw it.

FWIW, this was a clarification to the NCAAW mechanics this year (no change, but they added some examples to the CCA manual), along with a few test questionon it.

It doesn't really matter, as long as the crew looks like they know what the H they are doing.

I'm Waiting ...
 

Above: IAABO Two Person Manual Page 51

Also, check out page 22 in the NFHS Two Person Manual: 2.2.E.4.

Also: http://books.google.com/books?id=7jq...page&q&f=false: Page 68.

Snaqwells: Enough citations?

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Again, as long as you make eye contact with your partner, and make the mechanic look smooth, nobody will notice whether you do it by the book, or not. We don't want both to run down to the endline to become the new lead, with nobody to administer, and we don't want both hanging around as the new trail fighting over one basketball.

Yep, fast break = quick transition play. It's the only exception given for the bump n run given on page 50. There's no exception noted for the location of the ball when the violation is called.

Backcourt ...
 

Check this out: http://books.google.com/books?id=7jq...page&q&f=false Page 68.

In our state we bump and run on all plays in the backcourt. Meaning the New Trail takes everything in the backcourt for all violations and fouls. In the frontcourt you do not bump and run, you take it where it is. Again like said, it does not always work out that way as someone insists on moving someone when there is no need. Then again that does not mean that is the way it is or should be but it happens.

Peace

And how is this google book authoritative? Is it some IAABO resource of which I'm not aware? Look, I really don't care how you do it there, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm reading my IAABO mechanics book correctly. I don't see anything that distinguishes between FC and BC for bump and run purposes.

Reference ...
 

NASO and Referee Magazine (I do realize that Referee Magazine has had problems with rules in the past).

Also, check out page 22 in the NFHS Two Person Manual: 2.2.E.4. (I can't copy and paste from this PDF file, so please don't make me type it out.)

C'mon Snaqwells. I've listed three different "national" citations. I do realize that we all have our little "Romes" out there, and I also realize that the way we really officiate a game and the way it is done "by the book" are not always the same. bob jenkins put it best, the "by the book" rule is, "New trail has all throw-ins in the back court (bump and run). Otherwise, the official responsible for the line has the throw in". In real games, as long as you make eye contact with your partner, and make the mechanic look smooth, nobody will notice whether you do it "by the book", or not, in many cases, not even colleague observers in the stands.

NASO and Referee Mag aren't authorative sources and never have been. You follow what your area directs you to follow, whether that's NFHS mechanics, IAABO mechanics, state mechanic variations, whatever. You could have 50 states doing 50 different mechanics and each state would be right....for that state.

Iow.....silly monkey argument imo.

IAABO Mechanics ...
 

I was responding to Snaqwells statement: "Looking at the IAABO mechanics, Billy's got this one wrong". He didn't like the IAABO citation that I gave him, so I added a few extra. IAABO, and the NFHS, have much, but not all, in common. The NASO citation was one that was mentioned earlier in the thread, which is why I decided to use it, reluctantly.

Right, and while I still think you're reading the IAABO book wrong, it all boils down to how it's done in your part of Rome. I think I've sniped enough on this, sorry Billy.

Do The Bump ...
 

I certainly agree with the "Rome" thing. The reason why I'm so into the "book" is because I'm on my local board's mechanics training committee. We try to teach the the correct "book" mechanics. After they leave us they pick up different techniques from veteran colleagues, and clinics for young officials. These mechanics may differ from the "book" mechanics, but the "book" mechanics are always a good place to start.

The most important thing about the bump and run, or not doing the bump and run, is to do it smoothly, and then nobody, sans a veteran colleague in the stands, knows if you're doing it correctly, or not, and most veterans probably don't know, or remember, or care, about the "book" way.

I observed two junior varsity officials last season. One was an experienced veteran, but one of those "book smart" officials. The inexperienced official, as the trail, called a backcourt violation, and then decided to "run", and become the new lead. The old lead, the veteran "book smart" official, chased him all the way down to the endine, gave him the ball, and made him go back to the spot of the violation, near the division line. It looked like something from a Marx Brothers movie. I would have had no problem if they discussed this situation after the game, but to do it during the game, it just looked "bush".