Rules Question on strange D1 Ending (Video)
 

I have a rules question involving a D1 men's game.

An offensive player (O1) is running along the baseline with a screen being set on the right side of the lane. He steps on the baseline as he goes past the screen, then cuts to the wing area. He takes 7 steps while completely inbounds and establishes position 15 feet from the nearest boundary. While he has been running, his PG has been dribbling the ball. After O1 has established position 15 feet inbounds, the PG passes the ball to him. Whistle blows for O1 receiving a pass at this point. Is this correct? The rule and case law that may apply are vague and poorly written.

Second part. IF this a technical violation, would you call it with 11 seconds left in a tie game? For perspective, O1 was not looking to shoot when he caught the ball and he gained no advantage stepping on the line.

Third part (which I left out earlier to simplify): O2 stepped on the baseline initially because he was jostled by a defender. Does that affect the ruling?


Thanks for any help on understanding this.

I don't think the whistle blew for what you think it blew for.

It definitely did blow for exactly the reason I stated. The referee said so at the time, and the league also stated that was the reason after the game due to the many questions from the press and others. They cited the following as justification:

Rule 9. Section 4. Player Out of Bounds Art. 1.
A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation. a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after his return to the playing court.


I am not sure the referee made a correct application of the above rule.

I do not care if it is 10 seconds into the game or 10 seconds left, if there is an obvious violation of the rules, it must be called, close game or blowout.

I have no idea honestly what you are asking. I am not so sure what the call was on the court is what you are necessarily describing here.

Peace

Show me a video and I'll have an opinion.

The call on the court is exactly as I described it, which is pretty clear. In short, a player without the ball stepped on the baseline while going past a screen, then returned to a position 15 feet from the baseline and about 6 feet from the sideline. Took 7 steps after he was clearly inbounds. Then he received a pass from a teammate who had been holding the ball prior to that point. As the player who ran the baseline received the pass, the referee said it was a violation for him to touch a pass from a teammate at that point. I have seen identical plays thousands of times over the 50 years I have been involved in basketball as a player, ref, and coach. Never saw that call or heard about it being called.

Video: http://new.livestream.com/bucknell/Bucknellmbb (click on Colgate-Bucknell game, and then advance it to the final 30 seconds which can be found at about 1:55:00 on the video)

(Note that the announcer at the time had no idea what the call was. It was explained by the referee to the coach and then later identically explained by the league office.)


I truly am trying to understand this call and would appreciate some honest feedback.

You need to provide a clip of the play, I'm not searching thru the entire game. Also need a link to the article where the league comments on the call. And finally, how do we know how far OOB the player stepped out?

also, that one rule has been around for a while.

It was easy to find -- first possession after the timeout with 20.7 seconds left.

College game, so it doesn't really matter how far. He stepped out when he wasn't entitled to and received a pass from a teammate, becoming the first player to subsequently touch the ball after he stepped out. Correct application of the rule.

7-4-6.b has to do with a player who is allowed to leave the playing court when a team is allowed to inbound from any point along the end line (which, of course, includes a player stepping out of bounds to receive a pass from a teammate). Such a player is allowed to be the first to touch the ball subsequently. Doesn't apply here, obviously.

Yes it was a good call if the player goes out of bounds. It is a rule. And John Adams would want this called. You cannot see the player run out of bounds on the camera, but if he goes out of bounds to get an advantage, it should be called if he is the first to touch the ball during a pass. And yes it should be called in that situation. It probably was not even close either.

Please stop putting stock in what announcers say. They do not know the rules either. Even his description of the play showed how clueless he was. I did not even need to see the play to know what the rule was that applied here.

Peace

If the league office is aware of the call to the point where they've issued a statement, then you likely know whether the league office approves of the call that was made. In that case, what do you want from people who don't have any input to that league office?

And I'm guessing the calling official wouldn't agree with the OP's assessment that he went out because he was "jostled" by a defender.

He's out of bounds. If he's not fouled to get out of bounds, it's under his own volition. Some spaces are too small to squeeze through.

I am not so sure that he has to be fouled. But if there is contact that helped bump him off a spot, then yes he might not be under his own volition. That being said, you do not get the benefit of the doubt if you go completely out of bounds without any contact. I bet this was a designed play and he ran around to create a screen.

Peace

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NNJ0ggjDfOs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

While we can't see if it was OOB directly, the spot, speed, and angle where we see him enter the video would strongly suggest he came from OOB.

...and I agree with your assessment.

Assuming he was out of bounds, it's an easy and correct call.

I get it once or twice a season.

Note that the HS rule is different, and officials have differenct philosophies on how tightly to call it in HS.

Since we cannot tell if the player was out of bounds or not from the video, I will assume that he did in fact go out of bounds while cutting across the endline. In that case, you are wrong. The official was exactly correct in his application of the rule. Further, this has been a POE from the NCAA-M coordinator of officials the entire season and has been highlighted multiple times in his weekly videos sent to NCAA-M officials.

Thanks. There was clearly contact. Can't be seen live. Can be seen when they show replay from different angle. League quoted the rule but apparently is not happy at all with the call at that point. No advantage gained and it was ignored at least a dozen times earlier in the game. I doubt you will see that official again.

Contact does not make this not a violation. There was no foul called. And if there was contact and the player purposely still went out of bounds, that is still a violation.

And this was addressed on the NCAA tape recently. So I doubt seriously he is going to have any problem working. ;)

Peace

I doubt you know much about the rules and the application of said rules. The call looked right, no matter how you feel it should have gone.

Still waiting for a link to the statement made by the league.

"A dozen times" is nonsense hyperbole', and makes it hard to trust the veracity of your statements.

Pretty sure it does. I've spoken with several college officials who have told me to try to find a way to say he was pushed out and only call this if there was clearly no contact causing the player to go OOB.

I see no contact on this play. A1 runs around the pick, stepping OOB while B1 gets screened and ends up trailing the play.

Cannot trust the account given by kend one bit.

I can't tell from the angles we had but I'm fine with the call if there was no contact. I called it myself this year, and it left everyone in the gym thinking "WTF?"

If there is no foul ruled on the player and incidental contact takes place, a player still can run somewhere they are not supposed to. It is no different than if a player goes to the end line on a drive and a legal defender has contact with them and they go out of bounds. We do not penalize (or at least I do not) if the defender or opponent was legal. So why would I need contact or not have contact to make this determination? If there is contact I will give anyone the benefit of stepping on the line, but this rule is not about stepping on the line. The rule is about running around a screen or running out of bounds to get to a place easier. If this player's teammate is setting a screen right near the line and this player goes around him, that is a violation.

Peace

I doubt we'll see you again after this weekend.

The white player in the post pointed at the recipient of the pass and looked at the official. He then started clapping as soon as the whistle blew. He knew what call to expect.

If this happened a dozen times before that without being called, I doubt that player would be asking for the call at that point in the game.

wow, that was a surprising call. But hard to see from the angle. I would be curious to see if the players were doing that during the game.
I think Jay Bilas head would have exploded.

Did you even watch it? There was a huge advantage gained. He was able to shake his defender and come back in bounds to get an open pass as a direct result of the path he took.

Sounds like officials that like to make things up. I don't usually listen to those.

Either he stepped out on his own or he didn't. If he was contacted and stil went out on his own, trying to find a excuse to avoid making the call is cowardly.

Dunno about you but I tend to listen to college referees. I'm not saying lie and say he was pushed out when he wasn't. And if a player was pushed out then it's a valid excuse, not cowardly.

I listen to some and don't listen to others. Some officials move up by BS'ing their way along. I have no use for those.

You said they suggested you find a way to say they were pushed out. Either they were pushed out or not. I don't need to find a way to say they were pushed out.

So yeah, I get the college rule now. It's clear about going out of bounds and then being the first to receive a pass.

That part in red isn't in the NFHS rule for a "player OOB for an unauthorized reason." So in essence, you could call it right away in HS, though in practice I think we wait to see the result of the play, i.e. did the player gain a big advantage by avoiding a pick, getting an open look jumper, etc. I think that's the intent of the NFHS rule; it's just a bit more carefully encoded in the NCAA rules.

Thoughts? And/or how would you handle this same situation in a HS game?

I'd enforce the rule and call a violation. It's really that simple.

Incidental contact could cause a player to step OOB. That would not be leaving the court voluntarily, nor would it be a foul.

This.

Don't agree at all with the idea that if there's no foul he went out voluntarily.

I don't agree. Either the contact is a foul or the player leaving the court is at risk of being penalized with a violation (if first to touch in NCAA).

Got a ruling to back your opinion?

The rule says "voluntarily". It doesn't say "if there is no foul".

Many offensive players get bumped while trying to rub off screens. Most of the time, the official passes on that contact (i.e., no foul). But, now if the contact moves him a tiny bit and the offensive steps on the line it's a foul, or if he is the first to touch, it's a violation. I guarantee the good officials are going to deem this non-voluntary, and play on.

I can see it both ways -- if a player doesn't have room to slip by a screener without stepping out of bounds even if they brush...it's voluntary.

I agree with that.

I'd like to see a look down the end line. Without that, I really can't do much other than trust the judgement of the D1 official that's standing right there looking at it.

An offensive player and defensive player could bump into each other and it be incidental. The offensive player could step OOB as a result. I'm not calling a violation on that.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But like I said above, if the defensive player doesn't give enough room to get by...I could see contact and still expect it to be a violation.

Right. I've only had this violation in one game this season, and I had it twice (very rare), once for each team. In both cases, an offensive player made more than a few steps over the endline, trying to pass his defender.

My partner for that game had one of those teams later in the season, and the same kid did the same thing!

Either the contact inhibits the normal movements of an opponent and constitutes a foul or the player went to that location of his own volition and thus is subject to the violation rule. What you are doing is either ignoring a foul or ignoring a potential violation.

A1 and B1 run parallel down the sideline. They both look back in anticipation of an outlet pass. There is contact. (if this contact had happened in the center of the court nobody would have thought twice about it) As the contact occurs, A1 steps on the line. The outlet pass comes and A1 makes a leaping catch. You would call this a violation?

Apparently there's no gray area for you. I'd love to see video of one of your games, could you hook me up?

Yes, and the way you've written this OOB violation may be the proper call.

So what would it take to be not "of his own volition" for you?

A1 slips on a wet spot and falls to the floor. In doing so, his foot touches the sideline. He jumps to his feet (inbounds) catches the ball and shoots.

Is this a violation?

Was going to start a new thread on this question but it seems closely relevant (rule wise anyways) Saw this play run a few times in a game Sat and opposing coach wanting a T: Baseline OOB throw under A's basket, after A1 makes the throw in, he remains OOB at that spot for several seconds as the ball is passed among his teammates, then he runs to corner to receive a pass, I suppose hoping the defense loses track. Any violation for NOT returning inbounds soon after throw?

EDIT: Sorry, I see I should have read another thread for a more similar play and question.

What if contact is caused by a teammate? Two crossing teammates bump one steps on endline/past gatherhing balance?

What if contact is not a foul. Defensive player holding position in the middle of the key entitled to their post and offensive player not paying attention runs into the defender and bounces off and steps on baseline as a result?

The rule reads as "voluntarily". To me, those are not voluntary actions. I feel comfortable not calling a violation in those situations.

Coach may have had a point. I don't have my book in front of me, but when a thrower purposely delays returning inbounds in order to deceive, it's a Technical Foul on the player.

Conversely, when a thrower is not involved and you have players going OOB for unauthorized reasons, it's a violation.

Interestingly for the sake of NFHS trivia and/or future exam questions, this along with the excessively swinging elbows violation are the two violations (when committed by opponents of the shooter) that do not cause the ball to become dead when a try is in flight. Usually it's a foul that activates this exception, but there are two violations that do as well.

The ball becomes dead unless the violations you mentioned are committed by the opponent. I shoot, ball is in the air. You're on my team and run out of bounds or swing your elbows. ball dead. you cost us two points. (my shots always go in here:)
Didn't want you missing the trivia question….thx
Your trivia is about NFHS. NCAAm swinging arms and elbows also makes the ball dead unless try in flight and opponent does it.

Nor am I.

I have to see the player clearly and deliberately take a path OOB before i call that violation.

And I don't think they really even intended for this to be a violation if the player merely steps on the line but could have easily not.

Or applying the principle of incidental contact...

As per 10-3-2, is remaining at the throw in spot (oob) for several seconds then coming immediately straight onto court the same as running the baseline or sideline and coming on at the corner for example? Would a player be deceiving the defense by just standing in the spot after making the pass?

by rule, yes.

So B1 is defending A1 and gets screened by A2. To facilitate the screen, A1 runs wide enough around both players that he ends up going OOB. I can't verify he was OOB, but based on the fact that a D1 official called this, I have to assume it fit the letter of the rule. The facts we can verify on tape seem to confirm the spirit as well.

But he won't be back in the league because some anonymous poster here says so. QED.

Well then, never mind.

Funny thing is, if we cared enough, we could probably verify when he's shown to be wrong.

Colgate recap: "The Bison then took a timeout to draw up a play with 21 seconds remaining. Unfortunately for the host team, during their next possession a Bison player ran out of bounds under the hoop and then was the first player to touch the ball thus committing a turnover."

Bucknell recap: "After a timeout, the Bison turned it over on a rarely seen call. Kaspar delivered a bounce pass to Frazier out near the top of the key, but the official underneath the basket blew the play dead and ruled that Frazier had stepped out of bounds on his cut along the baseline. That gave Colgate the ball back with 12.5 seconds left, and Tillotson swished a jumper from the right elbow to put the Raiders ahead with 1.1 seconds left. Bucknell’s long inbounds pass was broken up as time expired."

The sad thing is that none of these officials have more than 10 D1 games in this season based on a quick StatSheet search -- all in smaller conferences -- and it wouldn't shock me in the least bit if our anonymous poster isn't correct

I don't want to criticize the ref because I can't see the angle. And the screens may have been set too close to the baseline so the offensive player ran out. But...either that is a great call or a horrible one in the situation. I saw a college game on Saturday where there were repeated plays where the offense was running out on those baseline screens. Those things happen and refs and players get used to it. Maybe it wasn't as blatant as this one possibly was, but this call was very interesting. To me it doesn't look bad, but maybe there was a warning about it and he could have went out without contact. we just don't have the angle. I don't want to bother watching the game but I'm sure that is a call the supervisors will want to get an explanation for. Despite the rocky start with the OP this ended up being an intriguing video.

I work in conferences with 2 of those officials, I'm sure they'll be fine.

you need to study the college rule better, then pay attention to when it applies.

I watched some of the game -- they looked rock solid.

I can't say what went on before that call. And I can't say how blatant it was. I think it is a very valid point though to make that players have done very similar moves and not been called for a violation. This one was. I'm not saying it was an incorrect call. It might be 100% right on and a great call. I just would be understanding of the coach and players' point of view on the wrong end of this call especially if they had been doing it either earlier in the game or in previous ones without it being called.

Doing what before in the game?

Is anyone here surprised that the supervisor, essentially, threw the official under the bus? He played the "veteran official" card even though he wasn't even on the court.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index...bucknell-.html

I wonder what John Adams would feel about this.

I don't trust the context of the interviewer's question. Who knows at what part of the conversation that question was asked.

"We have 890-some referees and they see that. At whatever level of ability they are, they have to process that and say, 'OK, if I see that, what am I going to do with it?'"

Greenwood's quotes don't make him look very good here, regardless of context. And the denigration of "Saturday night specials" in the article is the equivalent of me pointing out that these games are D1 in name only.

Also, note that the same violation was called earlier in the game. There's the warning that Greenwood waxes poetic about.

I don't see that as a negative statement. That how he processes plays. Greenwood is very much an "official's" supervisor. He backed his officials in the big Cincy/Xavier fight when, IMO, there were a few mistakes made by the officials leading up to, and during, the incident. He also backed his officials in the A10 championship game a few years ago that ended in multiple technical fouls.

I think you are reading way too much into the isolated quotes in the article. Again, we don't know the context of the statements as they relate to the flow and sequence of questions from the interviewer.

I'll take your word for it. Doesn't matter to me, as I'm not in that world.

I just know that as a HS supervisor I would leave it as "it's a correct call." Our officials take way too much crap for $60.

Iowa St. vs. Kansas last night. First Kansas possession of the 2nd half. Same play. No call. I don't know how to post the video.

I don't see anything at all wrong with the quote above from Greenwood. You make an excellent point though about the violation being called earlier in the game. The article certainly glazes over that. Overall though, I found it to be a surprisingly good article that sheds light on some of the finer points of officiating that usually do not get discussed outside the realm of officials.

Agreed. I don't really know Greenwood but have had some interaction with him and know some who work for him. I think he is trying to be candid while also supporting his official here. Its a fine line to walk but I don't see it as him throwing him under the bus.

I applaud the ref for his courage in making the call especially since it seemed the offensive player gained an advantage. For me this is an issue the refs(NCAA rules) should address because it can be considered unfair for the team that was penalized because this is a play you see without any violation called.

but as the article notes-

"In fact, the same rare call had been whistled against Bucknell earlier in the game by another member of the crew."

I'm not agreeing with the bolded comment you keep on making. Players do run OOB a lot, but it is only a violation if they receive the next pass.

I think the NCAA disagrees with you firmly, considering that enforcing this very rule is a POE this year.