3 OOB calls in one game

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm with Smitty, I just never see it.

Saw it and called it in a college game last Friday. (The NCAA rule is slighlty different -- the player who ran OOB must be the first (next) to receive a pass to be a violation.)

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Saw it and called it in a college game last Friday. (The NCAA rule is slighlty different -- the player who ran OOB must be the first (next) to receive a pass to be a violation.)

That is quite a different rule. The high school rule requires the player gains an advantage from being out of bounds for it to be a violation. I see kids out of bounds all the time, but not to gain any advantage. Calling this more than 5 times a season seems excessive.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Smitty

That is quite a different rule. The high school rule requires the player gains an advantage from being out of bounds for it to be a violation.

It does? I know that's how it is officiated but all 9-3-3 says is that a player may not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Welpe

It does? I know that's how it is officiated but all 9-3-3 says is that a player may not leave the court for an authorized reason.

You mean unauthorized reason. To me that means to gain an advantage. If you want to call it because the kid has his feet out of bounds, knock yourself out.

[Welpe]

Oops, yes I do mean unauthorized.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

You mean unauthorized reason. To me that means to gain an advantage. If you want to call it because the kid has his feet out of bounds, knock yourself out.

First time I've seen this interpretation of the rule. I generally take it to mean "on purpose." If they wanted advantage written into the rule, they would have stated it that way, IMO.

Either way, I just don't see it often.

[Welpe]

That's how I see it also Snaqs, intent is required but advantage not necessarily realized. That said, I haven't seen it yet but I haven't been calling basketball that long either.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

First time I've seen this interpretation of the rule. I generally take it to mean "on purpose." If they wanted advantage written into the rule, they would have stated it that way, IMO.

Either way, I just don't see it often.

You're correct on the interpretation. Much like 3-seconds, though, we try to talk them out of it first, and give the benefit of the doubt to the player on the first occurrence.

Thinking back, we did have it called in one HS game this season -- partner made the call from L, but I would have had it from C if he didn't.

[Adam]

Only time I've ever called it, A1 was trapped near the sideline at his FT line extended, but still had his dribble. He threw it behind his defenders, ran around them (OOB) to get to the ball.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

First time I've seen this interpretation of the rule. I generally take it to mean "on purpose." If they wanted advantage written into the rule, they would have stated it that way, IMO.

I think we're splitting hairs here, but can you give me an example of when a kid would be out of bounds on purpose (and you would call this violation) when he wasn't somehow gaining an advantage? Maybe you can convince me that I am looking at it wrong.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I think we're splitting hairs here, but can you give me an example of when a kid would be out of bounds on purpose (and you would call this violation) when he wasn't somehow gaining an advantage? Maybe you can convince me that I am looking at it wrong.

Maybe you can come up with an example of when a kid goes OOB on purpose and doesn't do it to (attempt to) gain an advantage?

(I think we all agree that the more egregious the violation, and the more an advantage is gained, the more likely it is to be called.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I think we're splitting hairs here, but can you give me an example of when a kid would be out of bounds on purpose (and you would call this violation) when he wasn't somehow gaining an advantage? Maybe you can convince me that I am looking at it wrong.

Off the top of my head:

A1 runs OOB to cross the lane. He didn't need to, and it actually takes him longer to get across. Just as he gets across and stands wide open for a three point shot, A3 takes a three point shot from the opposite wing.

A1 didn't get any perceptable advantage, but he violated the rule.