The 9-step pivot

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sure they are, despite all the hand-wringing. I'm sure you've seen someone with a foot on the far lane line for more than 3 seconds and haven't called it.

Bad example. The 3-second rule has been clearly communicated to have a specific purpose and that isn't it.

I reiterate....OOB, how far out is tolerated and in what situations?

[Rich]

You want to use your example to prove a point and I want to use mine. Both are violations.

The travel - he's not using the footwork to gain any advantage whatsoever.

I agree this is one nobody wants to miss, mainly because of the press this is getting, but I find it really hard to get bent out of shape over this stuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, if a player steps OOB with no one on them and doesn't get anything out of it, it is not a violation either? (Violations are not advantage/disadvantage situations).

Not in the NBA.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Violations are not advantage/disadvantage situations.

Disagree.

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

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.

Originally Posted by Rich

Sure they are, despite all the hand-wringing. I'm sure you've seen someone with a foot on the far lane line for more than 3 seconds and haven't called it.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... how far out is tolerated and in what situations?

Ten seconds to shoot a free throw.

Others have pointed to inbounder with foot a half-inch over the boundary on a backcourt throwin with no defensive pressure, or a slight "carry" in the backcourt with no defensive pressure; but do not include me as a proponent of the last two.

9.2.5 SITUATION A: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps onto the court inbounds. A1
immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact
with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on
the throw-in team. RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or
not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent,
it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

[Pantherdreams]

If a player steps out of bounds with the ball I'm calling it.

If a player off the ball has a foot in the lane and I've got other things to worry about and nothing is happening or impacting the play then no. BUT if its happening all the time and clearly allowing player/players to have better position to run offense, get deeper post ups later or get rebounding position . . . they are getting an advantage by me not calling the violation. So we're going to have lots of verbal warnings early in game so when I need to get you later in the game you aren't shocked.

Traveling is a whole different animal. You've got possesion of the ball. The on ball defender and off ball defenders are making decisions based what you can and cannot do by rule with the ball. At high levels this includes which is your pivot foot, your court position and tendencies. Unless we are talking about an unguarded take off by the dribbler 90 feet from the rim with the defense 40 feet away . . . I feel like you've got to get those travels. The fact that he isn't "doing" anything does not mean its not impacting the game. How defense aligns or reacts, what passing angles or positions he gets all change.

Soap Box Rant not specific to OP: Call the travels. Defenders don't have hand check or be as physical to defend the ball if players don't get an illegal take off. If teams and players have to spend time teaching and enforcing footwork rather then on ball screen defense, their 4th zone defense, or the 21st set play or counter. You'll get games with more flow and better basketball players eventually. If you want more skilled kids make kids and coaches need to make players with footwork and manipulative skills not live in the weight room and on defensive tactis/ball control offense. If you want the offense to get more steps change the rule (NBA) if not have the game called and taught the way the rules expect. Thank you for your time.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

If a player steps out of bounds with the ball I'm calling it.

As if we need a reason to be annoyed by Jay Bilas.... Several years ago in the tournament there was defensive pressure in the last few seconds of a game, (I don't remember the teams) a bump caused the dribbler to step out of bounds, and a foul was called, which led to game winning free throws. Bilas made a big deal of it and said the contact and the OOB should have all been ignored. The other announcer double checked. "You're saying the official should ignore this whole sequence?"

Bilas: "The good ones would."

I don't object to Bilas as much as some here, but this one really got to me. But the other part is that I assume Bilas isn't the only one who feels this way.

So, enlighten me. Is there anyone here, who ever, for any reason, would deliberately ignore a dribbler stepping on the sideline?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

hat I assume Bilas isn't the only one who feels this way.

So, enlighten me. Is there anyone here, who ever, for any reason, would deliberately ignore a dribbler stepping on the sideline?

Special Olympics (and only in some circumstances).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

hat I assume Bilas isn't the only one who feels this way.

So, enlighten me. Is there anyone here, who ever, for any reason, would deliberately ignore a dribbler stepping on the sideline?

Special Olympics (and only in some circumstances).

And that is the only time I'm letting a player take 9 steps and not get a whistle either.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Special Olympics (and only in some circumstances).

I was referring to "real games" but your answer speaks volumes.



"We might not even allow that in Special Olympics, bless their little hearts."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Special Olympics (and only in some circumstances).

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post959255

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

As if we need a reason to be annoyed by Jay Bilas.... Several years ago in the tournament there was defensive pressure in the last few seconds of a game, (I don't remember the teams) a bump caused the dribbler to step out of bounds, and a foul was called, which led to game winning free throws. Bilas made a big deal of it and said the contact and the OOB should have all been ignored. The other announcer double checked. "You're saying the official should ignore this whole sequence?"

Bilas: "The good ones would."

I don't object to Bilas as much as some here, but this one really got to me. But the other part is that I assume Bilas isn't the only one who feels this way.

So, enlighten me. Is there anyone here, who ever, for any reason, would deliberately ignore a dribbler stepping on the sideline?

Once upon at time, the NBA had a "forced out" rule, which I believe could have been applied in this scenario instead of calling a foul. *Now* I can't believe a single ref in the league would ignore the OOB and the foul.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Several years ago in the tournament there was defensive pressure in the last few seconds of a game, (I don't remember the teams) a bump caused the dribbler to step out of bounds, and a foul was called, which led to game winning free throws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No5hnQ0JjUA

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

He's not pressured, he's not moving from his spot on the floor. Why is anyone surprised nobody noticed the travel -- do you folks stare at the ball handler's feet when he's not pressured?

There is the sublime, and there is the ridiculous. This play falls in the latter.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Rich

You want to use your example to prove a point and I want to use mine. Both are violations.

The travel - he's not using the footwork to gain any advantage whatsoever.

I agree this is one nobody wants to miss, mainly because of the press this is getting, but I find it really hard to get bent out of shape over this stuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think I'd argue he's actually gaining an advantage. The common thought of advantage is probably position with respect to the hoop, but he was looking to pass from minute one. First off, he probably traveled initially which got him out of the key, preventing a 3 second violation or forced quicker pass, which is an advantage to him on that play. Second, he continued to back up, giving him an increasingly better view of the court to pass from.

So in this case, I think he traveled AND there was an advantage in positioning gained.

[Kansas Ref]

All in all, this is probably a great "Training Video" for novice NBA refs who are migrating from NFHS or NCAA into NBA or NBDL as it teaches them how to ingnore egregious travel violations---admittedly, it will take a long time for novice NBA refs to pass on making that call.