Running out of bounds and returning

[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.