Can't be the first one to touch it?

[dub3]

A referee called a violation on one of my players because he batted down a pass, stepped out of bounds (he was not touching the ball when he was out of bounds), got both feet back in and then grabbed the ball. The ref said "you can't be the first one to touch the ball when you come back inbounds from saving it"

I checked the NCAA rules and Rule 7, a.r. 1 seems to exactly describe this situation, and it says it is legal.

Was this ref wrong by NCAA rules? Also, in talking with other coaches, they seemed to agree with the ref that you cannot be the first one to touch the ball after you go out of bounds. Is this a commonly mistaken rule? Also, are there any rules other than NCAA that have that it is not legal to be the first one to touch the ball after battign it down adn goign out of bounds?



thanks

[Lotto]

Originally posted by dub3
A referee called a violation on one of my players because he batted down a pass, stepped out of bounds (he was not touching the ball when he was out of bounds), got both feet back in and then grabbed the ball. The ref said "you can't be the first one to touch the ball when you come back inbounds from saving it"

I checked the NCAA rules and Rule 7, a.r. 1 seems to exactly describe this situation, and it says it is legal.

Was this ref wrong by NCAA rules? Also, in talking with other coaches, they seemed to agree with the ref that you cannot be the first one to touch the ball after you go out of bounds. Is this a commonly mistaken rule? Also, are there any rules other than NCAA that have that it is not legal to be the first one to touch the ball after battign it down adn goign out of bounds?

This has been gone over many times in this forum. The play you describe is legal. The player doesn't even need to get "both feet" back in; all he/she needs is one foot touching in bounds so long as the other foot is not touching out of bounds (is in the air, for example).

[rainmaker]

The confusion comes because there IS a rule about touching the ball after your foot has touched out of bounds, DURING A DRIBBLE. The rule is that during a dribble, the ball is out of bounds if your foot touches out of bounds, even if you weren't touching the ball while your foot was oob. That might make it sound as though you can't be the first to touch after having been oob, but this rule only applies during a dribble. On a play sucha s you describe, this rule is meaningless.

[Eric Huechteman]

Originally posted by rainmaker
The confusion comes because there IS a rule about touching the ball after your foot has touched out of bounds, DURING A DRIBBLE. The rule is that during a dribble, the ball is out of bounds if your foot touches out of bounds, even if you weren't touching the ball while your foot was oob. That might make it sound as though you can't be the first to touch after having been oob, but this rule only applies during a dribble. On a play sucha s you describe, this rule is meaningless.

I think the confusion comes because a player who inbounds the ball CANNOT be the first to touch the ball. Players, fans, and coaches extrapolate that to apply to all situations.

Here's a question: If a player is running toward the sideline to get to a loose ball, dribbles twice, loses his balance (tapping the ball forward so that it bounces 2 or 3 times), steps out of bounds, comes back inbounds, and continues his dribble, has he committed a violation?

Just after I completed the question, I found the answer. Hehe. Rule 4-15-6d states: "Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player invoved in the interrupted dribble."

[mdray]

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman
[QUOTE
Here's a question: If a player is running toward the sideline to get to a loose ball, dribbles twice, loses his balance (tapping the ball forward so that it bounces 2 or 3 times), steps out of bounds, comes back inbounds, and continues his dribble, has he committed a violation?

Just after I completed the question, I found the answer. Hehe. Rule 4-15-6d states: "Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player invoved in the interrupted dribble."

your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball.

[Adam]

We had a he!!ishly long discussion recently about the definition of an interrupted dribble. If the player has lost immediate control of the ball, some say it's an interrupted dribble and therefor a legal play. Others say if the dribbler is able to maintain enough control to come back to the ball, it's a continuous dribble. I'm in the first camp; since I hold that if it isn't an obvious violation I'm not going to call it. If it isn't obvious that the dribbler maintained control the entire time, I'm letting it go.

[Eric Huechteman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdray

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman

your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball.

Actually it does apply. The rule book says nothing about how the ball gets away, only that it does. If any other player were nearby, he could simply pick the ball up. If that does not fit the definition of "gotten away from the dribbler," I don't know what does.

Think about it this way: If A1 and B1 get to the ball at the same time and contact occurs, you would not call a foul on B1, but you must if A1 had "control" unless B1 established guarding position on A1 first.

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdray

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman
your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball.

Your argument is self-contradictory.

On one hand, you say that it's not an interrupted dribble because it doesn't fit the definition.

On the other hand, you say that you have the OOB when they next touch the ball.

Both can't be true. If it's not an interrupted dribble but is still within the normal dribble, it's a violation the instant the foot touches the line. If you wait to call it when they touch it again, you've implicity declared it an interrupted dribble, which then makes it no violation.

[mdray]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

Originally posted by mdray

Your argument is self-contradictory.

On one hand, you say that it's not an interrupted dribble because it doesn't fit the definition.

On the other hand, you say that you have the OOB when they next touch the ball.

Both can't be true. If it's not an interrupted dribble but is still within the normal dribble, it's a violation the instant the foot touches the line. If you wait to call it when they touch it again, you've implicity declared it an interrupted dribble, which then makes it no violation.

you're right! my mistake.... I should have ruled that I've got a violation here as soon as he/she steps out of bounds; this is not an interrupted dribble in my judgement

[ref18]

One a player who isn't in control of the ball, is it 1 or 2 feet that must be inbounds in order for him to legally touch the ball. An official in my area said 2, but here everyone says 1, I'm just wondering which one it is??

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mdray
your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball.

If he requested TO, just before stepping OOB, would you grant the TO?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ref18
One a player who isn't in control of the ball, is it 1 or 2 feet that must be inbounds in order for him to legally touch the ball. An official in my area said 2, but here everyone says 1, I'm just wondering which one it is??

One, as long as the other foot isn't touching OOB.

[ref18]

Doesn't an interupted dribble occur when the dribbler no longer has control of the ball??

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ref18
Doesn't an interupted dribble occur when the dribbler no longer has control of the ball??

Yes, it does, no matter how it occurred.

[Adam]

BktBallref,
Great point about the timeout. I'm not granting the timeout, and I'm not whistling OOB.