The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Running out of bounds and returning (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100793-running-out-bounds-returning.html)

OfficialBFish Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:05pm

Running out of bounds and returning
 
Louisville vs NC, player sets screen along the baseline, another player comes off that screen while running out of bounds. He then clearly establishes both feet in bounds and then caught a pass. Referee blows whistle, points at baseline, and they give the ball to the defending team. Missed call?

Nevadaref Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish (Post 979009)
Louisville vs NC, player sets screen along the baseline, another player comes off that screen while running out of bounds. He then clearly establishes both feet in bounds and then caught a pass. Referee blows whistle, points at baseline, and they give the ball to the defending team. Missed call?

Correct call. NCAA rule against doing exactly that. Leaving the court and being the first to touch the ball upon returning.

OfficialBFish Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 979010)
Correct call. NCAA rule against doing exactly that. Leaving the court and being the first to touch the ball upon returning.

Didn't know NCAA interpretation. Thanks

deecee Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish (Post 979011)
Didn't know NCAA interpretation. Thanks

It's also a violation in HS.

Rich Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 979012)
It's also a violation in HS.

In HS the violation is for leaving, not touching the ball first after returning.

deecee Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 979013)
In HS the violation is for leaving, not touching the ball first after returning.

Yes, I made an assumption that the OP didn't know that either from his post.

OfficialBFish Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 979013)
In HS the violation is for leaving, not touching the ball first after returning.

So if the same situation happened in high school, what would be the ruling?

JRutledge Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:41pm

Do you have the time of the play in the game?

Peace

Nevadaref Mon Feb 01, 2016 09:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish (Post 979016)
So if the same situation happened in high school, what would be the ruling?

The violation would be whistled when the player steps out of bounds to go around the screen. The official wouldn't wait until he touched the ball after returning.
Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 979017)
Do you have the time of the play in the game?

About 2:30 remaining in the second half.

JRutledge Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:41pm

Here you go.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 979018)

About 2:30 remaining in the second half.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_AlrYZcFq-w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

AremRed Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:51pm

Why the heck did Eades go opposite? I checked my NCAA-M manual and didn't see anything about going opposite on this or any other type of violation. He didn't call a technical according to the box score.

Nevadaref Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 979030)
Why the heck did Eades go opposite? I checked my NCAA-M manual and didn't see anything about going opposite on this or any other type of violation. He didn't call a technical according to the box score.

I found that confusing too. It made me think that he whistled for an illegal screen, but no foul was ever reported.

The crew was: Bryan Kersey, Mike Eades, Bill Covington Jr.

JRutledge Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:21pm

He probably was going to tell the coach about the violation and he kept going when the player started asking about the play. I would not have done that, but maybe his partner took his place and he just kept going.

Peace

Nevadaref Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:29pm

The best that I can surmise is that his partner thought the call was an illegal screen (team control foul) and came to take his place so he went opposite.

JRutledge Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish (Post 979048)
Does it make any difference that he was the inbounder and never fully seemed to step in bounds after the throw in?

IMO, the thrower clearly steps from out of bounds and is right foot appears to be completely in-bounds and the left foot is in the air for a moment, then he goes out of bounds.

If he had never left the court, then this would be a Class B Technical Foul under Rule 10-4-1k. I think that is not what happened in this case.

Peace

frezer11 Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish (Post 979048)
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.

jpgc99 Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by frezer11 (Post 979055)
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.

JetMetFan Tue Feb 02, 2016 01:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by OfficialBFish (Post 979048)
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.

frezer11 Tue Feb 02, 2016 01:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpgc99 (Post 979056)
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

Raymond Tue Feb 02, 2016 08:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by frezer11 (Post 979060)
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.

bob jenkins Tue Feb 02, 2016 08:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by frezer11 (Post 979060)
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.

youngump Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 979071)
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.

Raymond Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 979075)
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.

deecee Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:46am

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.

frezer11 Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 979075)
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 (Post 979076)
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 (Post 979088)
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?

bob jenkins Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by frezer11 (Post 979099)
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.

deecee Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by frezer11 (Post 979099)
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.

frezer11 Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 979104)
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?

Raymond Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by frezer11 (Post 979113)
You're exactly right, so why not word it that way?

I hope you are asking that rhetorically.

Camron Rust Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:46pm

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".

bob jenkins Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 979115)
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".

but if the ball is just loose and the returning player touches it -- it wasn't a "pass" but it's still a violation.

deecee Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:58pm

I learned, not to long ago, to agree with Bob and that he's rarely wrong (anyone have proof otherwise?).

Camron Rust Tue Feb 02, 2016 03:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 979116)
but if the ball is just loose and the returning player touches it -- it wasn't a "pass" but it's still a violation.

Isn't it the pass they are trying to make illegal? Is a player ever getting an advantage by going OOB and happening to come back in where there is a loose ball with no one else around? Likely in a corner.

The play most often seen is when that player run OOB to get free and pops back inbounds in the corner to receive a pass while undefended for an open shot.

bob jenkins Tue Feb 02, 2016 03:38pm

I agree the pass is the play most often seen.

I believe both are illegal (assuming the player is OOB of his / her own volition)

DrPete Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:23pm

In NCAA-Men, if a player's momentum carries him out of bounds, can he be the first to touch the ball once he establishes two feet back in bounds? Most of the discussion so far concerns a player who intentionally goes out of bounds.

This happened in the Baylor/Texas game yesterday (with 19:24 to go in the first half if anyone wants to post a video).

Nevadaref Wed Feb 03, 2016 01:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPete (Post 979170)
In NCAA-Men, if a player's momentum carries him out of bounds, can he be the first to touch the ball once he establishes two feet back in bounds? Most of the discussion so far concerns a player who intentionally goes out of bounds.

This happened in the Baylor/Texas game yesterday (with 19:24 to go in the first half if anyone wants to post a video).

Yes, the NFHS and NCAA rules on leaving due to momentum or while making a save are the same. The player may return and legally get the ball.

This is different from leaving to run around a screen or avoid a defender.

Remington Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPete (Post 979170)
In NCAA-Men, if a player's momentum carries him out of bounds, can he be the first to touch the ball once he establishes two feet back in bounds? Most of the discussion so far concerns a player who intentionally goes out of bounds.

This happened in the Baylor/Texas game yesterday (with 19:24 to go in the first half if anyone wants to post a video).

1 foot back in bounds establishes the location of a player as long as they aren't simultaneously out of bounds with the other foot.

DrPete Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:58am

So anything in bounds and nothing out establishes in bound status---- and he can be the first to touch. Right?
FWIW The announcers (not Jay Bilas this time) said he had to hop back in bounds and have both feet touch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adam Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPete (Post 979264)
So anything in bounds and nothing out establishes in bound status---- and he can be the first to touch. Right?
FWIW The announcers (not Jay Bilas this time) said he had to hop back in bounds and have both feet touch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct

Never listen to the announcers when it comes to rules.

I've had partners make this call, though, so I really can't blame them.

Raymond Wed Feb 03, 2016 01:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPete (Post 979264)
So anything in bounds and nothing out establishes in bound status---- and he can be the first to touch. Right?
FWIW The announcers (not Jay Bilas this time) said he had to hop back in bounds and have both feet touch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't let talking heads make you doubt the rules or common sense.

Does it even sound credible that a player must have 2 feet on the court in order to touch the ball?

Dad Wed Feb 03, 2016 01:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 979296)
Does it even sound credible that a player must have 2 feet on the court in order to touch the ball?

The officials are on the court. To the people listening many of them will find it credible.

Raymond Wed Feb 03, 2016 01:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad (Post 979309)
The officials are on the court. To the people listening many of them will find it credible.

DrPete is an official, so I'm not sure what point you are making. We are discussing this amongst officials, not fans.

DrPete Wed Feb 03, 2016 02:48pm

I only work up to the high school level and didn't know if there was some slight difference in the NCAA rule set. I thought I could (somewhat) trust the commentators, Brent Musberger and Fran Fraschilla........ But I will stick to what I know and ignore the commentators from here on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Raymond Wed Feb 03, 2016 02:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPete (Post 979323)
I only work up to the high school level and didn't know if there was some slight difference in the NCAA rule set. I thought I could (somewhat) trust the commentators, Brent Musberger and Fran Fraschilla........ But I will stick to what I know and ignore the commentators from here on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Trust your training when it comes to commentators.

thedewed Sat Feb 20, 2016 07:03am

I'm confused on the result if have possession with 2 hands saving the ball, momentum taking player off the court and he leaves the ball on the court, goes out of bounds, then returns with one foot in bounds. can he be first to touch the ball in that scenario?

how about same situation but player was dribbling ball instead of just saving ball, is bumped by a teammate out of bounds and ball was left on court, then returns with one foot in the other in the air, can he be first to touch?

I've love to see both men's college and high school rule and quotation of the language. the high school books aren't online.

thanks

thedewed Sat Feb 20, 2016 07:56am

in looking at college casebook, 149, 195, and 261 seem inconsistent. what if you start a dribble but leave court through momentum, can you come back in and be first to touch? the latter 2 of these illustrations seem inconsistent on this issue. the example where you can catch (and thus in control), then leave the ball on the court, go out of bounds via momentum, then come back in, is legal under 149 implies 'control' isn't a problem, but under 261 dribbling is?

bob jenkins Sat Feb 20, 2016 08:32am

Assuming you are NOT leaving the court of your own volition, then it's not a violation to come back in and get the ball.

And, you're back in when one foot is in and the other is NOT out (so it's either in or in the air).

So, take the OOB part out of the plays.

Can a player touch the ball with two hands, leave the ball on the court, run a few steps, come back and get the ball? That's going to depend on whether the player had dribbled prior to this, and whether you consider the touch with two hands to be control, in which case the rest of the action is a dribble.

Similar analysis for the other plays.

thedewed Sat Feb 20, 2016 08:42am

So are you saying that if you are dribbling and go out on momentum, you can't come back in and recover?

that last case example seems to say that the problem with dribbling, leaving, and coming back, was because it was of the player's own volition, not because he was dribbling.

if you catch (thus control) the ball, leave it in the court as you leave it through momentum, then come back in and touch, that appears to be clearly ok under those case examples.

can you use actual language of the books to support what you say?

having an argument with guys in a pick up game, and I'm still not sure about what the books actually say. It's not terribly clear.

thanks,

thedewed Sun Feb 21, 2016 09:17am

so my take on reading all these 3 casebook examples is that the only time you would call a player for out of bounds while in player control is when he is actually in act of dribbling although not touching the ball when one of his feet actually last touched out of bounds. the example where a player can catch the ball while going out of bounds (thus player control) throws it back in bounds, and then goes and recovers is specifically in one of the examples, so even though that technically would be the start of a dribble, the act of intentionally throwing it down to the floor, and even though he was technically in player control the last time he touched it before releasing it in bounds, he still can go back and get it and continue dribbling, the only issues being potential traveling, double dribble, not going out of bounds as long as went out through momentum and natural basketball play. i have to say from observation that the majority of players don't understand that you can do that.

bob jenkins Sun Feb 21, 2016 09:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981816)
so my take on reading all these 3 casebook examples is that the only time you would call a player for out of bounds while in player control is when he is actually in act of dribbling although not touching the ball when one of his feet actually last touched out of bounds. the example where a player can catch the ball while going out of bounds (thus player control) throws it back in bounds, and then goes and recovers is specifically in one of the examples, so even though that technically would be the start of a dribble, the act of intentionally throwing it down to the floor, and even though he was technically in player control the last time he touched it before releasing it in bounds, he still can go back and get it and continue dribbling, the only issues being potential traveling, double dribble, not going out of bounds as long as went out through momentum and natural basketball play. i have to say from observation that the majority of players don't understand that you can do that.

Not quite as absolute as you make it.

That's not a surprise to anyone here.

thedewed Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:10am

so why not absolute? when would you call a player for last to touch when in bounds, going out through momentum, and being first to touch when in bounds? I would think that the casebook example where he clearly has control of ball, leaves it, then returns, would cover everything other than actively dribbling while one foot is hitting out. when else?

bob jenkins Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981820)
so why not absolute? when would you call a player for last to touch when in bounds, going out through momentum, and being first to touch when in bounds? I would think that the casebook example where he clearly has control of ball, leaves it, then returns, would cover everything other than actively dribbling while one foot is hitting out. when else?

First, the example you give in this post is NOT what you said ion your previous post (it might be what you meant).

Second, when it's a dribbler (not an interrupted dribbler), the player commits an OOB violation as soon as s/he steps OOB, not when s/he touches the ball while OOB, or when s/he returns from OOB and touches the ball.

Third, going OOB (and returning) from "momentum" is allowed -- this would NOT (likely) be a dribbler.

Adam Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981685)
So are you saying that if you are dribbling and go out on momentum, you can't come back in and recover?

that last case example seems to say that the problem with dribbling, leaving, and coming back, was because it was of the player's own volition, not because he was dribbling.

if you catch (thus control) the ball, leave it in the court as you leave it through momentum, then come back in and touch, that appears to be clearly ok under those case examples.

can you use actual language of the books to support what you say?

having an argument with guys in a pick up game, and I'm still not sure about what the books actually say. It's not terribly clear.

thanks,

No, if you're dribbling and step out of bounds, you're out of bounds immediately rather than when you retouch the ball. Now, if it's an interrupted dribble, that's different and legal.

If you're going to try to win an argument with guys from a pickup game, you're better off just buying a round of beer and moving on. But if you're going to try anyway, you'll need to start by settling on a rule set (NFHS, NCAA, FIBA, NBA) and a specific situation.

BillyMac Sun Feb 21, 2016 02:15pm

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 981822)
... if you're dribbling and step out of bounds, you're out of bounds immediately rather than when you retouch the ball. Now, if it's an interrupted dribble, that's different and legal.

9-3-1 Note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary,
even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

4-15: An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting
off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no
player control during an interrupted dribble. During an interrupted dribble:
Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the
interrupted dribble.

BillyMac's List: If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he, or she, can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

thedewed Mon Feb 22, 2016 08:27am

I've reffed at the D2 level men's before coaching my kids got in the way, and may return, and always want to know the specific rules. I don't have HS books anymore and can't find them online, so have just used the NCAA men's rules.

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?

It is also very subjective on the dribbling while touching. Obviously the only time that happens the player abandons the ball before going out, probably intentional, to avoid the oob call. So is that an interrupted dribble and thus he can come back in and retrieve? Or is it a violation for touching out of bounds while dribbling. I appreciate all of your thoughts.

It's not a bet, but it is a situation where I would like to have a clear understanding of what sets of facts are considered oob and which aren't. If someone could speak to the HS interpretation that would be great. If you guys actually officiate, I'd think you'd really want it to be clear for yourselves. Thanks,

jpgc99 Mon Feb 22, 2016 08:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981879)
I've reffed at the D2 level men's before coaching my kids got in the way, and may return, and always want to know the specific rules. I don't have HS books anymore and can't find them online, so have just used the NCAA men's rules.

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?

It is also very subjective on the dribbling while touching. Obviously the only time that happens the player abandons the ball before going out, probably intentional, to avoid the oob call. So is that an interrupted dribble and thus he can come back in and retrieve? Or is it a violation for touching out of bounds while dribbling. I appreciate all of your thoughts.

It's not a bet, but it is a situation where I would like to have a clear understanding of what sets of facts are considered oob and which aren't. If someone could speak to the HS interpretation that would be great. If you guys actually officiate, I'd think you'd really want it to be clear for yourselves. Thanks,

It is clear for us, and anyone that officiates at the D2 level also understands this.

deecee Mon Feb 22, 2016 08:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981879)
I've reffed at the D2 level men's ...

And you don't understand the principles of OOB or inbounds? It's not rocket science and as others have pointed out is very simple.

Did you actually ref D2 games or intramurals in a D2 school? I ask this because I can't for the love of me seeing an official that does HS varsity or higher NOT get this.

Raymond Mon Feb 22, 2016 08:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981879)
I've reffed at the D2 level men's ...If you guys actually officiate, I'd think you'd really want it to be clear for yourselves. Thanks,

If you've actually ref'd at the D2 level and have been coaching since, the OOB rules haven't changed, and they are the same for college and HS.

bob jenkins Mon Feb 22, 2016 08:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981879)
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 Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:37am

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.

BigCat Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 981879)
I've reffed at the D2 level men's before coaching my kids got in the way, and may return, and always want to know the specific rules. I don't have HS books anymore and can't find them online, so have just used the NCAA men's rules.

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?

It is also very subjective on the dribbling while touching. Obviously the only time that happens the player abandons the ball before going out, probably intentional, to avoid the oob call. So is that an interrupted dribble and thus he can come back in and retrieve? Or is it a violation for touching out of bounds while dribbling. I appreciate all of your thoughts.

It's not a bet, but it is a situation where I would like to have a clear understanding of what sets of facts are considered oob and which aren't. If someone could speak to the HS interpretation that would be great. If you guys actually officiate, I'd think you'd really want it to be clear for yourselves. Thanks,

You have DRIBBLES that everyone on the planet recognizes as a dribble---im pushing the ball down repeatedly moving up the floor--dribbling. If I step on the sideline while I'm in that process it is a violation whether I'm actually touching the ball at the moment i hit the line or not. I clearly have PC.

You also have events that MAY or may NOT be dribbles. It depends on what happens next. If I run to the sideline to save the ball, grab it and drop it to floor inbounds..then my momentum carries me out---the drop of the ball is just a drop of the ball at that moment. If i come back in bounds and touch the ball first, the drop, by rule, at THAT moment, is considered a dribble. If I simply continue pushing the ball down it is legal…play on. If i pick the ball up and then start a standard dribble…i have violated. Double dribble.


The stepping on the line stuff applies to the standard dribble or whatever you interpret to be a player in control at the time he steps on the line. When I drop the ball just before my momentum carries me out of bounds we don't know if that is a dribble and we certainly don't think i have control of the ball when i fly out of bounds.

I suppose you could consider it an interrupted dribble. If a player has PC and steps on a line-violation. If whatever you see doesn't look like PC-no violation.

Camron Rust Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 981883)
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 Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 981932)
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 Sat Feb 27, 2016 09:06am

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 Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:24am

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 Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:58pm

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 Sat Feb 27, 2016 01:47pm

Equation ??? I Didn't Know That There Was Going To Be Math On The Forum ...
 
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?

Adam Sat Feb 27, 2016 01:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 982543)
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.

BigCat Sat Feb 27, 2016 03:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 982553)
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 Sat Feb 27, 2016 03:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 982556)
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 <s>and hadn't dribbled already</s>.

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 Sat Feb 27, 2016 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 982558)
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.

Adam Sat Feb 27, 2016 03:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 982560)
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.

Good point. The OOB aspect is irrelevant in that regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 982560)
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.

True.

BigCat Sat Feb 27, 2016 03:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 982558)
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 Sat Feb 27, 2016 05:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 982563)
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)

Yeah, I think we were all getting confused when the two plays were being conflated.

Raymond Sat Feb 27, 2016 05:23pm

A totally worthless thread in regards to my officiating career.

Adam Sat Feb 27, 2016 05:49pm

This one falls pretty low on that scale. We've had some real stinkers over the years.

bob jenkins Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 982553)
Maybe this will make it easier for you.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 982554)
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 Thu Mar 10, 2016 05:32pm

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 Thu Mar 10, 2016 05:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 983739)
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.

jpgc99 Thu Mar 10, 2016 07:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 983739)
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 Thu Mar 10, 2016 08:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 983739)
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?

Raymond Thu Mar 10, 2016 08:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 983740)
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.

BlueDevilRef Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:02pm

I rarely agree with BNR[emoji12] but I'll do so here. Never mentions the ball, who had it, pass/dribble etc.
I'm sure Pollard is on this game bc he is pretty good at doing the job.

Adam Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 983748)
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.

thedewed Fri Mar 11, 2016 07:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 983747)
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.

AremRed Fri Mar 11, 2016 08:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 983747)
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. :D

BlueDevilRef Fri Mar 11, 2016 09:06pm

If I had a guess, it would be Pollard knows the rule and either missed it or saw something you didn't because he was there and you are not seeing the angle he had. But you really should give a better description of plays if you want to discuss them.

thedewed Sat Mar 12, 2016 08:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 983846)
Sounds like a dude who didn't get any/enough GLVC assignments. :D

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.

deecee Sat Mar 12, 2016 09:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 983857)
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.

I'll speak to the number of fouls called at the HS level. This is usually the case due to piss poor coaching and an inability for coaches and/or players to adjust to how a game is being called. We don't blow the whistle to just blow the whistle. We blow it when it needs to be blown. Crappy defense would tend to do that.

Lowering your shoulders IS NOT A FOUL. A foul has to do with contact and who DID NOT get to the spot legally in most cases.

Adam Sat Mar 12, 2016 10:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 983857)
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.

Without video, we're all left to guess at this point. People miss calls all the time, for a variety of reasons. You know the rule, so this was nothing more than a gratuitous shot at a D1 official. I'm not sure what else your purpose would have been in adding this to a dead thread.

It's time to let this one go.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1