Running out of bounds and returning

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish

Does it make any difference that he was the inbounder and never fully seemed to step in bounds after the throw in?

No, his motion off the screen took him further OOB, it was used to his advantage.

Have had a similar discussion before with others, if A2 runs OOB and then comes back in, and AFTER he is back in bounds and established, A1 throws the pass is that a violation? Rule says, " A player who has stepped 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." If the ball is still in A1's hand, then A1 is the first to touch the ball by virtue of the fact that it's still in his hand. So is this a legal play? By the letter of the rule, I think yes, but by the spirit of the rule, I'd say no.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by frezer11

No, his motion off the screen took him further OOB, it was used to his advantage.

Have had a similar discussion before with others, if A2 runs OOB and then comes back in, and AFTER he is back in bounds and established, A1 throws the pass is that a violation? Rule says, " A player who has stepped 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." If the ball is still in A1's hand, then A1 is the first to touch the ball by virtue of the fact that it's still in his hand. So is this a legal play? By the letter of the rule, I think yes, but by the spirit of the rule, I'd say no.

The wording of this question isn't very clear to me, but it is a violation if the player that steps out of bounds is the next player (in sequential order) to touch the ball.

In other words, if A1 is holding the ball in bounds and A2 steps out of bounds on his own and returns to the court, someone else must touch the ball before A2. So A1 can pass to A3 and then to A2, but if the pass goes from A1 to A2 it is a violation.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish

Does it make any difference that he was the inbounder and never fully seemed to step in bounds after the throw in?

Well, if that was the case the player could have received a technical for purposely delaying his return to the playing court after being legally out
of bounds. Given the two choices on the menu, I think the player and his coach would opt for the violation.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

The wording of this question isn't very clear to me, but it is a violation if the player that steps out of bounds is the next player (in sequential order) to touch the ball.

In other words, if A1 is holding the ball in bounds and A2 steps out of bounds on his own and returns to the court, someone else must touch the ball before A2. So A1 can pass to A3 and then to A2, but if the pass goes from A1 to A2 it is a violation.

And I agree with your interpretation, but I think the wording of the rule creates some doubt in that if A2 returns to the court before A1 releases the pass, then technically A1 is the first to touch the ball after A2's return

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by frezer11

And I agree with your interpretation, but I think the wording of the rule creates some doubt in that if A2 returns to the court before A1 releases the pass, then technically A1 is the first to touch the ball after A2's return

It doesn't create doubt among college officials. They understand what the rule is telling them to do.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by frezer11

And I agree with your interpretation, but I think the wording of the rule creates some doubt in that if A2 returns to the court before A1 releases the pass, then technically A1 is the first to touch the ball after A2's return

No, A1 is the "zeroth" to touch the ball. A2 is the first.

The rule is clear enough -- and it's a call that happens in my NCAAW games a couple of times a year.

I did notice that L did not use the new NCAAM "delayed violation" mechanic on this.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, A1 is the "zeroth" to touch the ball. A2 is the first.

The rule is clear enough -- and it's a call that happens in my NCAAW games a couple of times a year.

The rule is not clear and no one would come up with the interpretation that the NCAA uses unless someone told them it was that. That said the interpretation is very clear and first to touch means next. They should change the rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by youngump

The rule is not clear and no one would come up with the interpretation that the NCAA uses unless someone told them it was that. That said the interpretation is very clear and first to touch means next. They should change the rule.

Rule has always been clear to me. I don't even know if I've ever read the case play.

[deecee]

This rule is completely clear. I have yet to come across an NCAA official or assignor that has talked more than 30 seconds on this topic and anyone being confused.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by youngump

The rule is not clear and no one would come up with the interpretation that the NCAA uses unless someone told them it was that. That said the interpretation is very clear and first to touch means next. They should change the rule.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Rule has always been clear to me. I don't even know if I've ever read the case play.

Originally Posted by deecee

This rule is completely clear. I have yet to come across an NCAA official or assignor that has talked more than 30 seconds on this topic and anyone being confused.

But would you at least concede that the meaning of the rule is the next to touch the ball, therefore would be better written if it simply used the word "Next" instead of "First?" Does this minor wording issue require the rule to be changed? No, but if there is a better way to do things, then why not?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by frezer11

But would you at least concede that the meaning of the rule is the next to touch the ball, therefore would be better written if it simply used the word "Next" instead of "First?" Does this minor wording issue require the rule to be changed? No, but if there is a better way to do things, then why not?

Then someone will claim that if A1 is dribbling and continues to dribble after A2 returns, that A1 is the "next" to touch the ball.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by frezer11

But would you at least concede that the meaning of the rule is the next to touch the ball, therefore would be better written if it simply used the word "Next" instead of "First?" Does this minor wording issue require the rule to be changed? No, but if there is a better way to do things, then why not?

You are over complicating a very simple rule that hasn't confused any college official that I have come across. First - Next, all semantics that, as Bob pointed out doesn't change what the intent is. If a player has possession of the ball inbounds and a teammate runs OOB to go around a screen that TEAMMATE cannot be the recipient of a pass by the initial player with the ball. That's it. nothing more. nothing less.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by deecee

You are over complicating a very simple rule that hasn't confused any college official that I have come across. First - Next, all semantics that, as Bob pointed out doesn't change what the intent is. If a player has possession of the ball inbounds and a teammate runs OOB to go around a screen that TEAMMATE cannot be the recipient of a pass by the initial player with the ball. That's it. nothing more. nothing less.

You're exactly right, so why not word it that way?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by frezer11

You're exactly right, so why not word it that way?

I hope you are asking that rhetorically.

[Camron Rust]

Yes, this rule is badly worded. It should say something else. But what else? Either of the suggested wordings create bad interpretation opportunities.

Perhaps it should say "next to receive a pass".