NFHS Question
 

The ball is loose. Team A member #22 dives for the loose ball and goes completely out of bounds without touching the ball. Team B member #12 gains control of the ball and is completely in bounds. While #22 is out of bounds he reaches in bounds and touches #12 on the foot. Does this cause the ball to be out of bounds? Rule reference please.

No. 7-1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From The List ...
 

To be out of bounds, a player must touch the floor, or some object, on or outside a boundary line. People are not considered to be objects, so inadvertently touching someone who is out of bounds (another player, a photographer, a coach, an official, etc.), without gaining an advantage, is not considered an out of bounds violation.

So let's say a player with the ball is on the endline but is falling out of bounds. To stop himself from falling out of bounds he reaches out and pushes off of a cheerleader who is standing too close to the line. You have nothing? Perhaps an unsporting play? I don't see how it's a legal play, yet a cheerleader is a person not an object.

See 7.1.1A. the play you describe is legal.

I was sure Billy was right (he usually is), but it just didn't seem that way. It was hard to respond like that (just like my response to you in the backcourt violation thread).

I have a future Hollywood actor or producer.

The 7.1.1A ruling says, in part, "Inadvertently touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation."

According to NFHS CB 7.1.1A, the player would have committed an out-of-bounds violation.

MTD, Sr.

I've had this play and always wondered about adjudication by strict rule:

A1 in BC dribbles near his coach, who is standing extremely close to the sideline. The coach gives verbal instructions and in doing so, places his hand on A1's shoulder. There was no defensive pressure at all.

A1 did not touch the coach intentionally/inadvertently but rather the coach touched him. No advantage for anyone was gained by the touch. I allowed play to simply continue but some nearby were giving me weird looks as if to say "Is that allowed?"

Advantage ...
 

Nice citation LRZ.

7.1.1 SITUATION A: A1, while holding the ball inbounds near the sideline,
touches (a) player B1; (b) a photographer; (c) a coach; (d) an official, all of whom
are out of bounds. RULING: A1 is not out of bounds in (a), (b), (c) or (d). To be
out of bounds, A1 must touch the floor or some object on or outside a boundary
line. People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently
touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not
considered a violation.

As a result of LRZ's post, I've made a change in my List (first change not created by rule change in several years, I'm always willing to improve the List):

To be out of bounds, a player must touch the floor, or some object, on or outside a boundary line. People are not considered to be objects, so inadvertently touching someone who is out of bounds (another player, a photographer, a coach, an official, etc.), without gaining an advantage, is not considered an out of bounds violation.

So in my example, where a player purposely touches a cheerleader out of bounds, we're calling it out of bounds?

Mark Ain't bob ...
 

Always listen to Mark. Well, not always. Just most of the time. Wait, not most of the time, just some of the time.

Bryan:

To answer your question: Yes.

But the real discussion we all should be having is this: Let's change Bryan's play to this: "A1 is falling out of bounds and touches a cheerleader who is standing too close to the boundary line." How many of us, even bald old geezers like me, Bob, Jeff, Tony, and Billy, would, without really thinking have a bang-bang an out-of-bounds violation by A1?

Let the discussion begin!

MTD, Sr.

Thanks BryanV21 for posing this enigmatic issue:
If A1 touches the cheerleader who is standing out-of-bounds and this slight touch has enabled A1 to keep from falling out-of-bounds, then A1 has used the touching of an out-of-bounds person to indeed ''gain an advantage".
Also, if the coach is conferring with a player [as in the sitch also described] then that team has indeed "gained an advantage" by being allowed to 'confer' with the coach who is out-of-bounds.
Interested to see where this goes. Although this is a sasquatch type of play---I'm thinking I'd have out-of-bounds on the deliberate touching of cheerleader for the explicit purpose of gaining balance to keep from falling out of bounds. I will dutifully fall on my sword.