Love’s illegal outlet pass stirs debate

I contacted a league spokesman Wednesday morning about this weird-looking Kevin Love outlet pass from Monday’s game at New Orleans, and the spokesman confirms it was illegal. Take a look:

But there was some debate Tuesday night that perhaps Love is within the rules here, because it appears (though it’s hard to tell at real speed) that his left foot does not touch the inbounds section of the court until he releases the ball. That little detail of timing had some NBA writers arguing Love was OK here.

Here are the two key sections of the rule book:

From page 30 under the “Throw-in” section:

“Until the passed ball has crossed the plane of the boundary, no player shall have any part of his person over the boundary line.”

This would seem to be a clear indictment of Love, because half of his body is over the boundary line before the ball crosses from out of bounds back to inbounds. (In fact, it’s unclear if the entire ball ever even gets out of bounds).

So Love is guilty, right? If so, he’s guilty of a sin players commit all the time. Any NBA game will feature at least one or two instances in which the player taking the ball out steps over the baseline as he’s inbounding it. Usually it doesn’t matter, since they are inbounding it to a guard close by with no intention of starting a fast break or gaining any sort of advantage. This play from Love — a fantastic pass — is obviously different. Should the referees nail Love here even though they let ho-hum violations of this rule slide?

But perhaps we’re misinterpreting the rule. Several folks noted Tuesday night that the motion involved in throwing a chest pass will naturally take a player’s arms and hands over the boundary line before they release the ball. By the letter of the above law, that would appear to be a violation, but no one would seriously suggest calling it, right?

And then there is this additional tidbit from Section III (“Thrower-in”) on Page 34 of the rule book, which states that:

“A thrower-in shall not … step on the court over the boundary line before the ball is released.”

You read those three words there — “on the court” — and you can see where the Love defenders might draw their evidence. If stepping “on the court” means having one’s foot literally touch the surface of the floor, Love might be in the clear even though he’s way over the baseline.

If I were the judge, the first rule excerpted here is unambiguous enough even with the arms problem that I’m declaring Love guilty. But perhaps I’m underestimating the importance of the technicality hinted at in that second excerpt.