Out of bounds ruling?
 

Was playing a pick up game and came across a situation where there were differing views on the play. Hoping someone here can set me straight.

I ran to save a ball from going out of bounds at was successful at tossing it back in before going out of bounds. The ball bounced off a member of the other team and back in to my hands while I was still out of bounds. Who's ball should it be?

I believe in the NBA, that it would be considered the other teams ball since it touched me last... even though I was out of bounds.

In the NCAA and high school ball, it's the opposite call, right? The ball should go to my team since the opposing team knocked it out regardless of whether I was there.

Help!?!

You're overthinking it. The ball wasn't OOB until it touched you...because you were OOB. You caused it to be out. So it's the other team's ball. If it had touched the floor OOB first, that would be a different story.

There is no difference to this ruling in any rule set in the world.

However, thank you for posting something about an actual play. It has been a while. I hate the off-season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha!
Thanks for the quick response!

"There is no off-season, only pre-season"

GoogleDrive Link to "Yoda Ref"

Let's Do The Time Warp Again ...
 

Back in ancient times, if this were a throwin play (which it isn't), the throwin team would lose the ball because the inbounder "caused" the ball to go out of bounds because the inbounder threw the ball off an opponent who was out of bounds.

It always amazes me that some vestige of this ancient rule, in one form, or another, hangs around even though the rule changed over thirty years ago.

Wtf Freddy that might be the worst meme I've ever seen. :D

What is ancient times? And what rule set?

That frankly doesn't make much sense as an opponent should not be out of bounds on an inbound play. (Are you sure you aren't crossing this with the ball touching an out of bounds teammate, which would be a violation on the inbounder for not throwing the ball into play?)

Curse you, AremRed. I got a grin out of Freddy's line but didn't click on the meme until you wrote this. Now my eyes hurt. :eek:

What BillyMac was describing was an interpretation of the rule you cite. Say the inbounder threw the ball across the court (we aren't talking about a defender on the same sideline or endline as the throw-in spot) and the defense touched the ball while OOB. The ruling was this was a throw-in violation for not throwing the ball directly into play and was not an OOB violation on the defense.

Yes, that was the an "interpretation" of the rule for 1-2 years.....a very bad interpretation too.

Interesting. And mind boggling.

Hey, that took me four hours at work to do.

Am I Right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ???
 

Early 1980's. NFHS.

Interesting. May have been in effect while I was playing. Did a coach get Td up every time it was applied?

I thought it was in the 90s....after I started officiating.

Stories Around The Campfire ...
 

You could be right. Like I said, ancient times.

Coaches ??? Smart ???
 

It really wasn't a big deal at the time.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits a wall out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits the scorer's table out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits the police officer in the corner out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits a coach out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits a substitute on the bench out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits an opponent player out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Who's going to complain? Do you really think that coaches are that smart?

Billy, I'm having trouble figuring out how these are different from rules as written today, except the last one. All the others would still be applied the same, right?

Casebook Interpretation ...
 

Correct. And I don't believe that last one was a rule, but rather, an ancient casebook interpretation, that changed a long time ago.

It's (more-or-less -- I didn't get out the exact wording to see if this is exact) ust a conflict between two rules -- "causing the ball to go OOB", and "not throwing the ball so it's touched inbounds." For a couple of years, FED chose to say the latter had precedence.

And, it applied whether the player was from team A or team B.

Amazin' ...