The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficialBFish View Post
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.

Last edited by frezer11; Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:28am.
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
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.
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 01:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: West Orange, NJ
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficialBFish View Post
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.
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example."
"If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..."
"Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4."
"The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge)
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 01:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpgc99 View Post
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
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 08:15am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 08:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
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.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 10:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 10:22am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 11:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,499
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.
__________________
in OS I trust
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
Rule has always been clear to me. I don't even know if I've ever read the case play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
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?
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
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.
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
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.
__________________
in OS I trust
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
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?
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:45pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
You're exactly right, so why not word it that way?
I hope you are asking that rhetorically.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 02, 2016, 12:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,727
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".
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running out of Bounds RangeGunner Basketball 14 Thu Oct 22, 2009 06:22pm
running out of bounds, screen lpbreeze Basketball 26 Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:20am
Out of bounds-running baseline justshutup Basketball 5 Sat Mar 03, 2007 09:20am
Running out of bounds Jimgolf Basketball 3 Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:32pm
Running Out of bounds Bizket786 Basketball 34 Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:03pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1