Sorry, but if it's his momentum that took him out, then by definition it doesn't violate the rule. Nor does it fit my example.

I'm with RD, I'm probably giving a warning; but only one. If he does it again after that, I'm calling it.

The fact is, in practice, there will almost always be an advantage gained or attempted (even my example involves an attempted advantage). But the rule doesn't require it, and that's my only point.

Yeah if momentum is involved, mentioning it to anyone is equal to telling all players to move behind the division line on technical FT attempts :D


True story! In my experience players generally commit illegal acts to gain an advantage & disadvantage their opposition. Cant recall a play where it was reversed.

The rule doesn't use the word "advantage", but we use advantage to determine whether lots of actions are legal or not. I'm saying that to me:

on purpose = advantage

Unless you can show me an example other wise. Your example doesn't.

But that's not what you originally said the rule said. :D

Noted. Fair enough. :)

Going out of bounds "on purpose" is neither necessary nor sufficient for there to be an advantage.

Not necessary: a player's momentum carries him out of bounds, he steps around a defender as he goes in bounds, receives a pass and makes a layup.

Not sufficient: a player deliberately steps out of bounds to go around a defender, but as he returns to the court the ball is passed to the other side of the court.

Being done "on purpose" is not a criterion of advantage.

Once he chooses to step around the defender before coming back inbounds, he's gained an advantage, so I'm not seeing this one. Assuming the defender was attempting to screen or guard him, of course. If the defender was paying no attention to him, then I don't see a whistle here.

This one makes sense. I get this one. But I'd likely say something to him, because his intent was to cause an advantage, however none was gained.

I think your original point was that going OOB "on purpose" was sufficient for an advantage. I was covering both bases with my example: being done "on purpose" is not necessary for there to be an advantage gained. My example shows how.

Since being done "on purpose" IS necessary for there to be a violation, my example is not a violation. So clearly gaining an advantage is not sufficient for calling the violation.

See? :D

Yes I get it. But what you also show is that this violation should probably be called even less than I would call it. Which has been pretty much never. Because I'm (rightly or wrongly) using advantage to call this, no matter how he got there.

This is the only issue I have with how you're calling it, because it ignores the rule. As the 9.3.3 cases (A, B, C) make clear, only stepping out of bounds intentionally (to gain an advantage) constitutes a violation under 9-3-3. So it matters how he got there.

That's fine with me. Because I have not called it. :D

I do understand what you're saying, though.