Running out of bounds and returning

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I guess the most likely scenario to need to know is the play where the player has possession and player control (obviously) with both hands, is leaving through momentum, intentionally leaves the ball on the court before going out, and then returns, and having not dribbled before. He CAN go back and be first to touch the ball, even though that was technically the start of his dribble, and if just continues his dribble that would be fine as well. So even though all of his acts were intentional, I guess you need to interpret it as an interrupted dribble?

Those two statements are contradictory. That might be the cause of your misunderstanding.

[thedewed]

true, his leaving the court isn't intentional because left through momentum, but his leaving the ball is intentional, as he realizes he is leaving the court and intentionally drops the ball in bounds. Here is the issue in my mind: do we just set aside the issue that that is the start of a dribble? It doesn't neatly fit into the 'interrupted dribble' definition, as the ball didn't 'momentarily get away from the dribbler'. that in my mind implies no intent. yet the casebook seems to clearly allow this as an exception, even though he had player control when he left the court and intentionally started his dribble. Given that, my conclusion is that anytime he leaves through momentum, through a basketball play, however you want to describe it, and isn't actively dribbling the ball whether touching it or not as he leaves the court, then he can come back in and be the first to touch, both in high school and college.

I thought I understood the rule before this happened actually playing, and as I dug into the books I realized it was more complicated than I thought. If it happened in a game that I was officiating, I would have a very loose interpretation if someone was dribbling as they went OOB, versus an interrupted dribble. If they had abandoned the ball in any way, even if intentional in the abandonment but was leaving involuntarily, I would rule that they can come back in and be the first to touch.

Than you Bob for your reasoned response to the issues at hand.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Those two statements are contradictory. That might be the cause of your misunderstanding.

Not necessarily. I could purposefully run towards and OOB line knowing I was going to go OOB, leave the ball just before I got there, and, due to my Boltish speed, not be able to stop my momentum before going OOB.

[OfficialBFish]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not necessarily. I could purposefully run towards and OOB line knowing I was going to go OOB, leave the ball just before I got there, and, due to my Boltish speed, not be able to stop my momentum before going OOB.

Classic accidentally going out of bounds on purpose play, you see Coach K draw it up all the time

[thedewed]

Here are the 2 casebook examples for NCAA that seem a bit inconsistent to me. Why does 149 imply that a factor is that A1 "was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court" when ruling he can be the first to touch when returning, yet in 261 it doesn't seem to matter if someone has caught it (thus is in control) and throws it back onto the court and is first to touch. The player control seems to only be an issue if a player is actually in the process of dribbling.

A.R. 149. A1 deflects a pass near the end line. The ball falls to the floor
inbounds but A1, who is off balance, falls outside the end line. A1 returns to
the playing court, secures control of the ball, and dribbles.
RULING: Legal. A1 has not left the playing court voluntarily and was
not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court. The same
is true when A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum
carries A1 off the playing court. It is legal when the try is unsuccessful,
and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control of the ball.
(Rule 7-1.1, 4-23.1.a and 9-3)

A.R. 195. A1, while airborne, catches the ball in an attempt to prevent a
live ball from going out of bounds. A1 throws the ball to the floor as his
momentum causes A1 to land out of bounds. A1 returns to the playing court
where he:
1. Recovers the ball; or
2. Continues to dribble.
The official calls a traveling violation. Is the official correct?
RULING 1 and 2: No. The official was incorrect in calling a traveling
violation because when A1 caught the ball while airborne, A1 had no
established pivot foot. When A1 threw the ball to the floor, returned
to the floor after being legally out of bounds and was the first to touch
the ball, it became a dribble.
1: When A1 recovered the ball, the dribble ended.
2: A1 is permitted to continue his dribble.
(Rule 9-5.2 through .7, 4-13.2 and 4-13.4.a)

[bob jenkins]

Sigh.

In 195, A1 caught the ball. That establishes control. When he throws the ball to the floor (not "accidentally loses control of the ball) and then touches the ball, that's a dribble. This is true whether (or not) he goes OOB. Any subsequent play is now governed by the rules on "double dribbling."

In 141, there was never any control, so never any dribbling. Again, this is true whether (or not) A1 went OOB. Subsequent play is governed by the "recover a fumble" rules -- in other words, it;'s the same as if he had just caught the pass at the spot of the eventual recovery.

[thedewed]

Sigh is right. 149 implies that whether A1 had control or not when leaving the court matters when determining whether he can touch when he returns, and it doesn't.

As you say, when a player catches the ball, he is in control.

Maybe this will make it easier for you. Let's say team A has ball, and A2 is throwing it on the wing to A1. It is an errant pass, A1 leaves his feet to catch it, while still airborne he secures it with 2 hands, then throws it back onto the court while still in the air. He was clearly in control of the ball precisely when he intentionally throws it back onto the court, he lands out of bounds, he returns inbounds, and is first to touch.

That is legal, but 149 certainly implies that a factor in determining whether it is legal is whether he had control of it. He did. Yet my ruling under the books in totality is that he can be the first to touch, despite the inconsistent wording of 149.

Now, if when he caught it he had a foot down, then jumps up, in control, throws it back onto the court, and is the first to touch, it's a travel because he lifted his pivot foot before starting a 'dribble'.

any problem with that analysis?

[BillyMac]

Is it fair to say that what a player can legally do (regarding traveling and illegal dribble) while 100% on the court is also legal when said player is involved in a legal off/on momentum boundary situation? And that what a player cannot legally do (regarding traveling and illegal dribble) while 100% on the court is also illegal when said player is involved in a legal off/on momentum boundary situation? Can the off/on momentum boundary situation be taken completely out of the equation to simplify the matter? Or am I missing some subtle exceptions?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Sigh is right. 149 implies that whether A1 had control or not when leaving the court matters when determining whether he can touch when he returns, and it doesn't.

As you say, when a player catches the ball, he is in control.

Maybe this will make it easier for you. Let's say team A has ball, and A2 is throwing it on the wing to A1. It is an errant pass, A1 leaves his feet to catch it, while still airborne he secures it with 2 hands, then throws it back onto the court while still in the air. He was clearly in control of the ball precisely when he intentionally throws it back onto the court, he lands out of bounds, he returns inbounds, and is first to touch.

That is legal, but 149 certainly implies that a factor in determining whether it is legal is whether he had control of it. He did. Yet my ruling under the books in totality is that he can be the first to touch, despite the inconsistent wording of 149.

Now, if when he caught it he had a foot down, then jumps up, in control, throws it back onto the court, and is the first to touch, it's a travel because he lifted his pivot foot before starting a 'dribble'.

any problem with that analysis?

If the player in 149 had control when he left the court he would be ...OUT OF BOUNDS. That is why it is in there.
They are telling you the entire play is legal. He didn't have control when he went out so we don't kill the play at that moment. He can come back in and be first to touch because he didn't leave voluntarily and hadn't dribbled already.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Here are the 2 casebook examples for NCAA that seem a bit inconsistent to me. Why does 149 imply that a factor is that A1 "was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court" when ruling he can be the first to touch when returning, yet in 261 it doesn't seem to matter if someone has caught it (thus is in control) and throws it back onto the court and is first to touch. The player control seems to only be an issue if a player is actually in the process of dribbling.

With 149, control of the ball only allows him to dribble. It has no bearing on whether he can be first to touch.

There's no inconsistency here.