Running out of bounds and returning

[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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Maybe this will make it easier for you.

I don't think I need it to be any easier for me, thanks.

Originally Posted by 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?

You are correct that none of the plays being discussed have anything to do with any OOB / returning violation (or not).

[thedewed]

with 6 to go in the K state KU game today, selden goes out of bounds, wasn't even the last to touch, then comes back in, 1 foot clearly down the other one either also down or in the air, but certainly not out of bounds, and college assigner of officials Gerry Pollard called a violation while pointing at Selden and screaming about something. So he apparently doesn't know the rule. If any of you know him, you might educate him, if you are comfortable helping him grow as an official.

[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 BigCat

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.

Whether he had dribbled is not relevant to whether he can be the first to touch.

That part only means he can dribble once he returns.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by Adam

Whether he had dribbled is not relevant to whether he can be the first to touch.

That part only means he can dribble once he returns.

Hey, we're making progress, but I don't think this is right. if he dribbles, picks up and controls on the way OOB, throws it back in bounds intentionally, and then comes back in bounds and is the first to touch, he can't, not because he went OOB, but because he'd dribbled, caught, and then passed to himself. traveling. The OOB has nothing to do with it.

The other replies, thanks I see what you are saying. So in the example I gave above where catching an errant pass while airborne on way OOB, throwing back in and first to touch, he can come back in and essentially RESUME dribbling or catch and NOT dribble any more.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

Whether he had dribbled is not relevant to whether he can be the first to touch.

That part only means he can dribble once he returns.

If the player had dribbled, fumbled it and then saved it as in this play he could not be the first to touch it. That would be considered a second dribble.

(I now see that this wasn't the controlled toss play. sorry)

[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.