Violation for Voluntarily Running Out of Bounds
 

How often do you all see/call the violation for running out of bounds?

I saw it 4-5 times in one night going under a screen set near the end line, but was under mandate not to call it. Just wondering how often it actually gets called compared to how often it is seen...

I've called it once or twice since the rule change.

I called it once I believe. Maybe twice.

Peace

Have you all only seen it that number of times, or that is just the number of times you have actually called it?

Actually very rarely see it. At least not where is is so obvious it should be called IMO.

Peace

You see it, you call it. Why wouldn't you?

I see it just a couple times a season, really. I've called it once, but it was obvious and an easy sell since the player was in the middle of an interrupted dribble when he did it.

Because you want to keep progressing, and you were instructed not to call it to the letter of the rule. Same reason you don't call three seconds everytime you see a player in the paint for three seconds.

Threes seconds, traveling, carrying, BI/GT, or any other number of things that are mostly called when they are obvious.

Peace

I've never called this, nor the "excessive elbows" violation. I just hope I remember to call these when I see them.

I was already taking that concept into account.

I've called it...maybe once every couple of years. I see it a lot more often, maybe once every couple of games, sometimes 2-3 times in the same game. When do I call it? I call it when the person who does it gets an immediate advantage from doing so...like being passed the ball for an open shot when they pop back inbounds on the other side.

Hey, Stay Inbounds ...
 

Once, as the lead, I had a player almost run into me going around a screen. It surprised me, so I figured I'd call the violation the next time down. After a foul, and a switch, my partner was the lead for that team's next possession, and sure enough, the player almost slams into my partner, who calls the violation. We hadn't even talked about the play. The Vulcan mind meld that we did in our pregame carried over into the game.

Well, since the rest of us work where the rule is in force we don't see it as much. If you're in a league where you ignore the violation of course it's going to occur all the time.

There is no way to logically compare our situations with yours.

Just out of curiosity, why were you under a mandate not to call it and who gave the mandate?

This was similar to my initial thought... the mandate to not call it is a good part of the reason you're seeing it. Where it gets called, it doesn't happen often.

Saw a player step out of bounds to avoid a 3-second call once.

I will say it was called in a playoff game that I worked and the same official called it twice. I went back to see if these situations were there on the tape and I could not tell even if or who went out of bounds. And all it did was raise more questions than solve an issue. I have no problem with anyone calling it if it is obvious. If someone just barely steps on the line, I would give that a pass just as I would with someone calling 3 seconds with a player whose heal is slightly on the line. Because I know I am hardly looking that closely at this violations as opposed to some contact or the reasons for the contact. Otherwise I do not see many obvious violations of this rule.

Peace

Pepperidge Farm Remembers ...
 

I don't have a citation, but I was taught that that was never a legal tactic for player to avoid a three second violation, and, if three seconds had passed, to just call the three second violation rather than the intentionally going out of bounds violation.

Anybody remember something similar? Anybody got an old citation? Anybody know where my car keys are?

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

This is from my Misunderstood Basketball Rules list:

"It’s a violation for a player to step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a three second violation."

Is it a three second violation (assuming three seconds have passed), or is it an intentionally going out of bounds violation, (assuming that three seconds have not passed)?

It is, or was, in the case book. Did you try looking there?

Always Listen To bob ...
 

9.3.3 SITUATION A: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane.
A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second
count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. RULING:
A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.(9-7)

Was it always a leaving the court for an unauthorized reason violation, or was it ever a three second violation?

Seems to me that if someone just barely steps on the line, they've not violated anything anyway. They did not "leave the court for unauthorized reasons".

I have called it once...as L in the wide angle position, kid ran behind me going from corner to corner. Pretty much had to call that one.

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.

James Naismith Is Rolling Over In His Grave, And It's A Traveling Violation ...
 

What a novel idea. Do you think it will catch on?

Ditto. I called it twice this season.

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

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).

I do agree. I just think that is not technically how it is interpreted. But then again I could be wrong.

Peace

To me, this rule only applies if a player is completely OOB with both feet. I could be wrong, but that's how the rule reads to me. It's obviously how most of us apply it, though.

i dont call it for 2 schools anymore
 

I was T in 3-whistle during a free throw. B player was talking to his coach near the sideline, after the rebound he ran out of bounds under the basket (in the blue paint out of bounds) and popped back in to receive a long pass for an easy basket. I called the violation, from about 20' from the baseline as soon as he received the pass. Coach says, "you couldn't see that from that far away." I told him both feet were in the blue, and coach said, "not when he caught the ball."

After the game the AD told me that both coaches think I was making up a rule. In the 3 years since I have not had any phone calls for these schools. Prior to that day I did a varsity dh for each and a handful of jv games each. That is what you get when all the coach has to do is push play on an internet video and come back in 45 minutes and click, "yes I watched the video."

I do remember a conversation at a scrimmage style clinic several years ago... after one of us called that for a player simply stepping on the line coming down from a failed attempt at a rebound (player landed on the line and to catch himself took a step out of bounds before recovering his momentum)... According to the reaming this guy took for that call, inadvertently going OOB during action is NOT what this rule is about. This rule is about players, of their own volition, going out of bounds on purpose for whatever reason (usually, as mentioned above, to avoid a screen or to avoid a 3-second call). Simply stepping on the line is nothing.

I have this about once per year. Once, in a youth game, I had a double violation. :eek:

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.

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?"

The problem isn't with the coaches lack of rules knowledge or being able to skirt watching a video, it lies with how your area handling officials getting games. Anytime that the coaches have a say in who officiates, the integrity of the game is compromised.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Too Logical ???
 

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)

Ive called this twice I think. I don't the intention of the rule is to penalize the player that is coming off a screen and might get half to a full shoe out of bounds. It's for the teams/players that use the OOB to gain an advantage when running off these screens.