dribbler OOB

[wizard]

Question:
Player A1 is dribbling, loses control, steps OOB then comes back in bounds and is the first to touch the ball. I believe this is illegal but can't find reference in the rules or case book. Anyone?

[garote]

Not legal 7-1-1. It's only legal if he's pushed out of bounds.

[mick]

Originally posted by wizard
Question:
Player A1 is dribbling, loses control, steps OOB then comes back in bounds and is the first to touch the ball. I believe this is illegal but can't find reference in the rules or case book. Anyone?

... R 4-15-6

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by wizard
Question:
Player A1 is dribbling, loses control, steps OOB then comes back in bounds and is the first to touch the ball. I believe this is illegal but can't find reference in the rules or case book. Anyone?

If there's no player control, then why would it be illegal? It's illegal to step OOB while dribbling (player control), even if the dribbler is not touching the ball. However, if there's no player control. . .

[Hawks Coach]

Always stirs up a bit of a debate. But I agree, you have an interrupted dribble, therefore no violation. I am just waiting for the what ifs to begin on this thread, then 5 pages of intellectual discussion

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by garote
Not legal 7-1-1. It's only legal if he's pushed out of bounds.

Read casebook plays 7.1.1(b)&(c).It's legal because of no player control and NOT deliberately going out of bounds.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by wizard
Question:
Player A1 is dribbling, loses control, steps OOB then comes back in bounds and is the first to touch the ball. I believe this is illegal but can't find reference in the rules or case book. Anyone?

Originally posted by garote
Not legal 7-1-1. It's only legal if he's pushed out of bounds.

Sorry guys but it's legal. If he "loses control," there i no player control.

[wizard]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Sorry guys but it's legal. If he "loses control," there i no player control.

Hopefully this will clear it up:
His loss of controls was by his own actions. There was no interrupted dribble by a defender.

BktBallRef, where do we stand now.

(And should "loses control" only refer to when it is caused by a defender?)

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by wizard

Hopefully this will clear it up:
His loss of controls was by his own actions. There was no interrupted dribble by a defender.

BktBallRef, where do we stand now.

(And should "loses control" only refer to when it is caused by a defender?)

It doesn't matter. Loss of control is loss of control. It doesn't mean loss of contact with the ball, it means loss of control, either through a defender batting it away, or through tripping over his own un-tied shoelaces and batting it away, or dribbling it off his knee, or whatever. If control is lost, it's an interrupted dribble.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by wizard
Hopefully this will clear it up:
His loss of controls was by his own actions. There was no interrupted dribble by a defender.

BktBallRef, where do we stand now.

(And should "loses control" only refer to when it is caused by a defender?)

4-15-5: An interrupted dribble occurs when momentarily gets away from the dribbler.

4-15-6: During an interrupted dribble:
d. Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by garote
Not legal 7-1-1. It's only legal if he's pushed out of bounds.

Uh, nope - sure you're not looking at football rules?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by wizard

Hopefully this will clear it up:
His loss of controls was by his own actions. There was no interrupted dribble by a defender.

BktBallRef, where do we stand now.

(And should "loses control" only refer to when it is caused by a defender?)

As Juules said, it doesn't matter. The definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about a defender touching the ball.

[Nevadaref]

BktBallRef and Juules,
You're both wrong on this one. It DOES matter how the player loses control. If the player loses control because of his own actions, we have an interrupted dribble. If the player loses control due to a bat by an opponent, the dribble has ended, and we simply have a player running down the court who steps OOB. Therefore, no violation in either case, but it does matter for whether or not we have an interrupted dribble, and hence whether or not there could be a double dribble violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
[QUOTEdo we stand now.

As Juules said, it doesn't matter. The definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about a defender touching the ball.

Try looking what it says under how a dribble ends, Tony.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Try looking what it says under how a dribble ends, Tony.

No, READ WHAT I WROTE. "The definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about a defender touching the ball." That was in response to the Wizard's post, "His loss of controls was by his own actions. There was no interrupted dribble by a defender."

Now read the defintion of an interrupted dribble.

4-15-5
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.

Now, do you see anything in that definition that says anything about a defender touching the ball? No, I didn't think you did.

So, no, we are not both wrong. You're simply addressing a different issue than I was. One, in fact, that has nothing to do with the play.