3 OOB calls in one game

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

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?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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?

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

I do understand what you're saying, though.