The 9-step pivot

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

No travel, no advantage.

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).

[Rich]

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).

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.

[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?

[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.

[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

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.

[Rich]

About a player stepping out of bounds being a violation:

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not in the NBA.

I don't get this post. Sarcasm?

Originally Posted by Rich

About a player stepping out of bounds being a violation:



I don't get this post. Sarcasm?

Depends. Camron never specified what kind of stepping OOB the player was doing. If Camron meant to imply that the player had the ball and stepped OOB, it's obviously a violation and my comment is sarcasm. If Camron meant an off-ball player stepping OOB then that's obviously nothing and my comment can be taken literally.

And no I don't think OOB violations can be subject to advantage/disadvantage. Some violations like OOB are black and white, while some like traveling, carrying, etc. are much more gray and thus can be subject to A/D.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Depends. Camron never specified what kind of stepping OOB the player was doing. If Camron meant to imply that the player had the ball and stepped OOB, it's obviously a violation and my comment is sarcasm. If Camron meant an off-ball player stepping OOB then that's obviously nothing and my comment can be taken literally.

And no I don't think OOB violations can be subject to advantage/disadvantage. Some violations like OOB are black and white, while some like traveling, carrying, etc. are much more gray and thus can be subject to A/D.

I think in context, it was obvious to me that he meant a player with the ball, given that's the only situation where "stepping out of bounds" is always a violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Depends. Camron never specified what kind of stepping OOB the player was doing. If Camron meant to imply that the player had the ball and stepped OOB, it's obviously a violation and my comment is sarcasm. If Camron meant an off-ball player stepping OOB then that's obviously nothing and my comment can be taken literally.

And no I don't think OOB violations can be subject to advantage/disadvantage. Some violations like OOB are black and white, while some like traveling, carrying, etc. are much more gray and thus can be subject to A/D.

Originally Posted by Adam

I think in context, it was obvious to me that he meant a player with the ball, given that's the only situation where "stepping out of bounds" is always a violation.

Player with the ball.

Sort of like this player, with the the ball, where the facts (holding the ball, feet moved several times, etc.) are not in dispute. There is no good reason to argue that it is OK to not call this play a travel anymore than the same player stepping OOB with the ball.

And I generally don't think that traveling is so much advantage/disadvantage call. There is nothing authoritative I've ever heard or read to suggest otherwise. Most of the cases where traveling (and even carrying) is disputed, unlike this one, have a definite advantage.