Inbounds Violation (Video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Very astute of you.

Is "astute" Latin for "stupid"? Should I be offended?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"By rule"? I disagree. The following is in the rulebook and makes no distinction between violations and fouls:

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

4-27 Incidental Contact does (of course) refer to fouls only, but, surprisingly, doesn't use the term advantage, or disadvantage, anywhere in the wording of the rule, but does allude to those terms.

Billy, this passage tells you that some things may well be loopholes in the rules, but should not be allowed. It does not mean we should let some violations go because there's no advantage. Local practice (pretty much everywhere) applies A/D to 3 seconds, but that's not in the rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Where do we draw the line?

Knowledge. Experience. Practice. Judgment. Intelligence.

"It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation."

Sometimes lines are drawn in sand, and not chiseled in stone.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ccrroo

I understand the call if this is a dead ball in-bounds play.

What the heck is a "dead ball in-bounds play?" The ball is always live during a throw-in.

And, I do think there's some element of "ad/dis" during (many) violations.

A technical travel or "carry" / double dribble in the BC with no pressure, for example, might not get a call, but if the player does either of those in the FC to get by a defender, it's called much more tightly.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And, I do think there's some element of "ad/dis" during (many) violations.

A technical travel or "carry" / double dribble in the BC with no pressure, for example, might not get a call, but if the player does either of those in the FC to get by a defender, it's called much more tightly.

Amen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jerkins

A technical travel or "carry" / double dribble in the BC with no pressure, for example, might not get a call ...

I've heard some discuss the "technical carry" (ball handler, all by himself, in the backcourt, looks at the coach for play and, distracted; inadvertently, and momentarily, carries the ball) as an advantage/disadvantage situation, but not the illegal "double" dribble. Probably because the illegal "double" dribble is so black, and white; while the carry requires a little bit more (gray) judgment.

[ccrroo]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins;950890]What the heck is a "dead ball in-bounds play?" The ball is always live during a throw-in.

Sorry about the poor terminology. I was just trying to distinguish between a TI after a made basket and all other TIs. Or if that terminology still isn't correct, a TI where the offense is allowed to roam the baseline and TI where the offense isn't.