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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Do you have the time of the play in the game?
Peace |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Here you go.
Quote:
Peace |
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.
|
Quote:
The crew was: Bryan Kersey, Mike Eades, Bill Covington Jr. |
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 |
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.
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
of bounds. Given the two choices on the menu, I think the player and his coach would opt for the violation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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". |
Quote:
|
I learned, not to long ago, to agree with Bob and that he's rarely wrong (anyone have proof otherwise?).
|
Quote:
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. |
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) |
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). |
Quote:
This is different from leaving to run around a screen or avoid a defender. |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Does it even sound credible that a player must have 2 feet on the court in order to touch the ball? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
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 |
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?
|
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. |
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, |
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.
|
Quote:
That's not a surprise to anyone here. |
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?
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Let's Go To The Videotape ...
Quote:
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. |
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, |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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) |
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. |
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? |
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?
|
Quote:
There's no inconsistency here. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
That part only means he can dribble once he returns. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
(I now see that this wasn't the controlled toss play. sorry) |
Quote:
|
A totally worthless thread in regards to my officiating career.
|
This one falls pretty low on that scale. We've had some real stinkers over the years.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
But you're right, so much is missing from that description that it is meaningless. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
It's time to let this one go. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55am. |