Running out of bounds and returning

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

As you described it, he missed the call.

It happens.

I've worked with very good officials who don't know this rule. That happens, too.

Or, Pollard determined that he went out of his own volition, and was the first to touch the ball when he got back in bounds. That's a violation in NCAA.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

As you described it, he missed the call.

It happens.

I've worked with very good officials who don't know this rule. That happens, too.

Or, Pollard determined that he went out of his own volition, and was the first to touch the ball when he got back in bounds. That's a violation in NCAA.

As described I have no idea what happened in this play. Was Selden dribbling? Was it a pass? Maybe if this poster was halfway capable of describing in officiating language I'd take him seriously.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

As described I have no idea what happened in this play. Was Selden dribbling? Was it a pass? Maybe if this poster was halfway capable of describing in officiating language I'd take him seriously.

Yeah, I thought I had a picture in my head because I've seen guys miss ruels and calls that should know better. I've missed rules and calls and should know better.

But you're right, so much is missing from that description that it is meaningless.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sounds like you know him and don't get picked up.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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.

WTF is your purpose here? You got a resume' to back up these whiney a$$ posts?

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

WTF is your purpose here? You got a resume' to back up these whiney a$$ posts?

wtf is your problem? I figured one of you guys know him. I don't, don't officiate anymore, I have kids and coach. And he seriously does not know the rule. It's not a matter of missing a judgment call.

It was in transition, Selden chasing down a KSU guys that shoots a wild layup, Selden goes up to try to block, misses it, ball comes off and both guys through momentum end up out of bounds, Selden comes back in, clearly has one foot down, and the other one is close to being down or is in the air, but he's a couple feet inbounds, and Pollard blows the whistle and screams some explanation and gives it to KSU.

The game was out of reach, no one cared or commented. I figured that somebody on here is his buddy and cares, they'd mention it to him, because I guarantee that if it was a close game and he made that call, it would be a bad deal.

I don't really GAF, just thought somebody on here might. If you know him and don't mention it, you aren't helping him out. I understand the ego deal with officials lol, but ultimately, it might come back to haunt him.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

WTF is your purpose here? You got a resume' to back up these whiney a$$ posts?

Sounds like a dude who didn't get any/enough GLVC assignments.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Sounds like a dude who didn't get any/enough GLVC assignments.

I worked for Zetcher, not Pollard, got hired my second summer of camps, worked a few years and got a good conference schedule, and did just fine, thanks, but my priorities changed. I'd rather coach and actually play than officiate at this point.

Besides, the application of the rules changes would drive me crazy. I don't think officials are giving the defense enough credit for positional defense, and punishing them more than the offense for any contact between the 2. If a defender is there and giving ground or not closing the gap with the dribbler, don't call a foul on the defense.

Particularly at the high school level in my area, I see games where there are 60 and more fouls called. It is absolutely ridiculous and a result of administrators telling guys to blow the whistle, blow the whistle. Ruins many games.

I am find with the rule changes, understand the rationale, but I don't think officials properly implement them because they forget the ballhandlers are many times like running backs, lowering their shoulders, quick and tremendous athletes.

There was nothing Pollard could have seen that made it an incorrect judgment call, he either forgot or doesn't know the rule. I just found it noteworthy given this discussion.

[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.