Violation for Voluntarily Running Out of Bounds

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I see it two or three times a season and I call it two or three times a season.
I believe in calling the game according to the rules.

I'm just curious, did you call it that often when it was penalized by a technical foul?

[#olderthanilook]

On more than one occassion in several games this past season, I've verbally told players to stay on the court as they ran the baseline (avoiding screens).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

On more than one occassion in several games this past season, I've verbally told players to stay on the court as they ran the baseline (avoiding screens).

You shouldn't be instructing the players. That's not your role.
If the act is severe enough, then you should be penalizing it, not talking about it.
If it isn't severe enough to warrant a penalty, then you shouldn't say anything.

Save the preventative officiating for situations in which two opposing players are involved and their conduct is borderline. Preventative officiating was not intended to be an excuse for not properly calling fouls and violations. How many times can John Adams say, "make the call and the players and coaches will adjust?"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...Save the preventative officiating for situations in which two opposing players are involved and their conduct is borderline. Preventative officiating was not intended to be an excuse for not properly calling fouls and violations. How many times can John Adams say, "make the call and the players and coaches will adjust?"

He doesn't say that, that was Hank Nichols.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You shouldn't be instructing the players. That's not your role.
If the act is severe enough, then you should be penalizing it, not talking about it.
If it isn't severe enough to warrant a penalty, then you shouldn't say anything.

Save the preventative officiating for situations in which two opposing players are involved and their conduct is borderline. Preventative officiating was not intended to be an excuse for not properly calling fouls and violations. How many times can John Adams say, "make the call and the players and coaches will adjust?"

Well, most people don't answer to John Adams, I know I don't. As much as I may or may not agree with him, it doesn't matter. I can tell you, if I made this particular call and it wasn't either a) egregious (like rocky's situation) or b) a repeated offense after a warning, I'll have some 'splainin' to do.

The same as a 3 second call, IMO ("45, keep moving"). For that matter, it's similar to the coaching box ("Coach, I need you back in the coaching box") and slightly mouthy assistant coaches. The fact is, some local leadership structures want these things warned, if possible, before penalized.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You shouldn't be instructing the players. That's not your role.
If the act is severe enough, then you should be penalizing it, not talking about it.
If it isn't severe enough to warrant a penalty, then you shouldn't say anything.

Save the preventative officiating for situations in which two opposing players are involved and their conduct is borderline. Preventative officiating was not intended to be an excuse for not properly calling fouls and violations. How many times can John Adams say, "make the call and the players and coaches will adjust?"

My style has increasingly leaned toward a preventive style of officiating the last few years. When I'm lead, and I see A2 starting to set a screen and it's obvious that A3 is going to run off his shoulder along the endline, I'll sometimes say "stay inbounds, stay inbounds" as he's cutting through while he's still inbounds. It's a little thing, but it's just another way to stay focused and alert to plays and keep kids out of trouble. I know that isn't everyone's philosophy or style, but it works really well for me.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm just curious, did you call it that often when it was penalized by a technical foul?

If my memory is correct, the technical foul was for egregious situations in which a player left the court to deceive the opponents. The NFHS made a statement only a few years ago about the game needing to be played within the boundaries of the playing court, which strengthened the language on this and instructed the officials to be stricter about enforcing it. It was also either just before or just after this that the penalty was changed from a T to a violation.
So, no, I did not make this call nearly as frequently when the penalty was a T, but unless my memory is incorrect, the standard for the call was also significantly different back then.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If my memory is correct, the technical foul was for egregious situations in which a player left the court to deceive the opponents. The NFHS made a statement only a few years ago about the game needing to be played within the boundaries of the playing court, which strengthened the language on this and instructed the officials to be stricter about enforcing it. It was also either just before or just after this that the penalty was changed from a T to a violation.
So, no, I did not make this call nearly as frequently when the penalty was a T, but unless my memory is incorrect, the standard for the call was also significantly different back then.

I'll have to see if I can find my old books in the basement (no attic in this household), but I remembered the change being simply a move to rule 9 from rule 10. You may be right, though.

[JetMetFan]

Found it online. It was changed/added for the 05-06 season:

In an effort to increase the likelihood of the infraction being called to eliminate a tremendous advantage, Rule 9-3-2 was ADDED. The rule states that players leaving the court for unauthorized reasons will be charged with a violation INSTEAD of a technical foul, which was the former penalty. The rules committee felt that the rule change would not only make the action easier to enforce, but will more likely serve as a deterrent against players leaving the court.

9-3-2 The penalty for a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason (voluntarily) or delaying his/her return to the court after a throw-in is NOW a violation.

PLAY 1: A-1 steps out of bounds to avoid a 3 second violation.

Ruling: A-1 has committed a violation. The ball shall be awarded to Team B for a throw-in at a designated spot (NOT between the free throw lane lines) nearest to where the violation was committed.

PLAY 2: Thrower-in A-1 completes the throw-in to A-2 and then takes four or five steps along the boundary line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen set by A-3 and A-4.

Ruling: A-1 has committed a violation for failing to move DIRECTLY onto the court after the release of the ball. The violation ruling is NOT to be delayed until A-1 returns to the court. It is ruled a violation WHEN the delay OCCURS.

Remaining off the court or NOT going onto the court directly is similar to leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. In THIS case it should be obvious that A-1's movement, out of bounds, along the end line was to take advantage of the screen.

NOTE: The violation DOES NOT occur when the player returns to the court and touches the ball. It occurs when the delay occurs.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Found it online. It was changed/added for the 05-06 season:

So according to this, the rule was the same before, only penalized by a technical foul. I need to go back and see if I can find the 04-05 books now. Thanks, this should help narrow down my basement search.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

So according to this, the rule was the same before, only penalized by a technical foul. I need to go back and see if I can find the 04-05 books now. Thanks, this should help narrow down my basement search.

That is correct. Only the penalty changed, not the rule.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Found it online. It was changed/added for the 05-06 season:

QUOTE: "PLAY 2: Thrower-in A-1 completes the throw-in to A-2 and then takes four or five steps along the boundary line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen set by A-3 and A-4.

Ruling: A-1 has committed a violation for failing to move DIRECTLY onto the court after the release of the ball. The violation ruling is NOT to be delayed until A-1 returns to the court. It is ruled a violation WHEN the delay OCCURS.

Remaining off the court or NOT going onto the court directly is similar to leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. In THIS case it should be obvious that A-1's movement, out of bounds, along the end line was to take advantage of the screen. "

Curiously, this Case Play is stated in Case Book 10.3.2 as penalized by a T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

QUOTE: "PLAY 2: Thrower-in A-1 completes the throw-in to A-2 and then takes four or five steps along the boundary line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen set by A-3 and A-4.

Ruling: A-1 has committed a violation for failing to move DIRECTLY onto the court after the release of the ball. The violation ruling is NOT to be delayed until A-1 returns to the court. It is ruled a violation WHEN the delay OCCURS.

Remaining off the court or NOT going onto the court directly is similar to leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. In THIS case it should be obvious that A-1's movement, out of bounds, along the end line was to take advantage of the screen. "

Curiously, this Case Play is stated in Case Book 10.3.2 as penalized by a T.

Yep, failure to return is a T. Leaving the court is a violation. It's a bit inconsistent.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Failure to return is a T. Leaving the court is a violation. It's a bit inconsistent.

I suggested this change (below) to the NFHS, through my interpreter, this past season. I doubt that they went for it. It's too rational.

Suggested 2013-14 NFHS Rule Change

NFHS 9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

Change 10-3-2 from a technical foul to a violation. Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds should carry the same penalty as leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

NFHS 9-3-3-B: A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)