3 OOB calls in one game
 

iAs lead, I was about two feet off the end line. As I moved toward the arc, A1 was standing next to me. He was not an inbounder who had not returned to the court. TWEET. A couple more trips down the court, and one of my partners makes the same call on Team A from the lead. Not to be outdone, B1 plants both of his feet OOB as I am the lead. Wanting to call it the same at both ends, a third violation was called. I have called this 5-6 times a season. I have never seen it called twice in a game, let alone 3 times.

The good news is that the halftime talks by their coaches seemed to have cured the problem.

I called a 3 second violation tonight. Oh, and the final of my GV game was 71-5.

I only posted the 3 second violation because I mentioned in an earlier thread how I get about one a month and now I've called 2 in 2 games.

It actually was quite easy -- the winning team's center (face it, a team down by 70 could probably sit in the lane and rub two sticks together and start a fire and I'd probably notice my shoe was untied) got the ball in the lane and passed it out and never left. Her coach was telling her to get out of the lane. I wait a few more beats and then finally called it.

Of course that prompted the crowd to yell for it on every subsequent possession, all of which had balls bouncing off the rim or the like. Hey, they needed something to cheer for.

I got ya beat. 86-8. Did I call 3seconds??????:rolleyes: Nope.

He Beat Me To The Punch ...
 

The only time I've thought about calling a violation for leaving the court was when the offensive player used his screen by going off the court and almost knocking me, as the lead, over. It caught me by surprise, so I didn't call it, but I was ready for the next one. Next time down the same end, after a switch, my partner, as the lead, called it after the same team did the same thing to him.

The flip side......
 

While I've had my share of these types of games too, I had an excellent GV game last night. One of the better teams in the local region. Both teams played very well and I had excellent P's. Man could the H team shoot foul shots. As a team they must have been at ~ 80%!

It was fun to be out there.

Running clock in the land behind the cheddar curtain?

Um, no.

Personally, I don't see the need for a running clock, even with a 71-5 game. After 32 minutes of game play, we go home.

It actually went quickly. Neither team was in the bonus either half. We started at 7PM and were off the floor by 8:10PM.

I probably have one per game or every other game (I've never really counted). I think it's very seldom more than one per game. But, in the aforementioned thread Rich aluded to, I've stated that we don't talk people out of the lane in these parts. Consequently, the kids don't typically need to be reminded.

I also said that I look for an effort to get out of the lane before whistling. I just don't see the big deal about calling this violation. Watch, now that I've said this here, I'll probably have three or four tonight. :cool:

We talk them out here, but I don't think I have to even do that more than once every other game. They don't need to be reminded.

Had a similar situation this year. I'm L and administering an inbound to A1 on the sideline. After inbounding the ball I turn to look into the low post and notice A1 running OOB past me (i.e., passed me on my OOB side) and didn't re-enter inbounds until he got to the other side of the key. Weird stuff but still made the call.

Now thats game management!


Yeah, the players always get out once the opposing coach & fans started yelling for it.
"I was just about to call it but you helped out by reminding him, COACH!"

I nearly told a coach last night: "The rule requires three whole seconds."

3 whole unbiased seconds :D

You don't think he naturally just counted fast? :D

Rich,

I also worked a girls V game last night where the final was 71-5 where my P called 3-seconds....G.L. vs. O.L.. Are you the same "Rich" who filled in as my P last night? If so, good to see you on the forum.

3 seconds is one of those rules that is way more nuanced than coaches/players think. Sometimes I wish I had the time and opportunity to explain those nuances to coaches during the game, because most truly don't understand it. Not that it would do any good, but I think some coaches might be surprised at how not quite cut and dry the 3 second rule is.

You call that violation 5-6 times a season?? :eek:

I find that hard to believe that it happens so blatantly that it needs to be called that many times. Are these kids really attempting to gain some kind of advantage or do they just happen to be out of bounds and not realize it? I've maybe called it one time since it became a violation. Maybe.

While I called this about 2 weeks ago, I don't even remember the last time I called it...probably years ago. It just doesn't happen much.

I've called it once; 2 or 3 years ago.

3 silent seconds with no interruptions. Otherwise, I lose count.

Guess Smitty likes to set aside rules he doesn't like. Penalty used to be a T.

Of course I am. What are the odds we're talking about two different games? :D

Good to see you here, too. Like I said last night, I hope someday that we can work a game that's a bit closer than 66 points.

It's always nice to work a game with a really solid official, even when it is 71-5.

Best part of last night were the fans yelling for 3 seconds during the possessions after I called it -- while the ball was bouncing on the rim. Of course, those fans were hoping for anything, ANYTHING at that point. :D

Fill in the Blank;

"Don't make ____________ your best call".

Mine would be..."3 seconds"...then "traveling".

I'm with you, wholeheartedly.

:rolleyes: I know what the penalty used to be, genius. That's why I said "since it became a violation". You didn't answer my question.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Oops, yes I do mean unauthorized.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have never seen this interpretation, like the other posters have said.

I have called it a couple times in the last few years when an offensive player went OOB on the endline to get around traffic in the lane.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.