3 OOB calls in one game

[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.)

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?

That's the same question I asked - why are you asking me?

[tref]

I just noticed that in HS it seems as though the defense & offense can be penalized for unauthorized leaving of the court, as it occurs.

In NCAA one has to be first to touch the ball, so that leads me to believe its a rule geared toward the offense.

[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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

If he stays out of bounds all the way from the other side of the lane to the opposite 3 point line, I would argue he did it to gain an advantage. If he just went as far as lane line to lane line, and wasn't doing it to get around a defender, I would likely have nothing.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

If he stays out of bounds all the way from the other side of the lane to the opposite 3 point line, I would argue he did it to gain an advantage. If he just went as far as lane line to lane line, and wasn't doing it to get around a defender, I would likely have nothing.

I agree, but I would definitely let the player &/or his coach know to stay on the playing court as it could be a violation... by rule.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by tref

I agree, but I would definitely let the player &/or his coach know to stay on the playing court as it could be a violation... by rule.

It depends - if his momentum takes him OOB for a few feet, no need to warn for anything. If it appears he might be trying to gain some sort of advantage by doing it on purpose, I may say something as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

It depends - if his momentum takes him OOB for a few feet, no need to warn for anything. If it appears he might be trying to gain some sort of advantage by doing it on purpose, I may say something as well.

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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

It depends - if his momentum takes him OOB for a few feet, no need to warn for anything. If it appears he might be trying to gain some sort of advantage by doing it on purpose, I may say something as well.

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

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Snaq's...great example...but, I'm probably just verbally telling the players to stay on the court in this example...no violation.

Of course, I don't remember the last time I called this violation so I could be missing an oportunity to blow my whistle.

Since I'm on a Dave Libby quoting spree today...he once said, "It's sometimes hard to tell the difference in an experienced official and a less experienced official...both may not blow their whistles much. An official that has enough experience to know all the rules...sometimes like to show what they know by blowing the whistle all the time."