location of player

[thedewed]

if player touching ball but not in control, then goes out of bounds and leaves ball on court, then is first to touch after coming back on the court, is that good? Or does he need to have both feet down? High school and college same rule? Asking for general rules knowledge, I thought I had seen a few years ago that contrary to conventional wisdom, you only needed one foot back in and the other airborne to be considered in bounds.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

if player touching ball but not in control, then goes out of bounds and leaves ball on court, then is first to touch after coming back on the court, is that good? Or does he need to have both feet down? High school and college same rule? Asking for general rules knowledge, I thought I had seen a few years ago that contrary to conventional wisdom, you only needed one foot back in and the other airborne to be considered in bounds.

The rule is the same., You can find it under Player Location in the FED rule book.. I think that's 4-35 (from memory) but I might be wrong

[JRutledge]

There is no "first touch" provision in the rule.

And all a player has to do to establish being inbounds is touching the floor without touching the out of bounds. And high school and college in this area is basically the same. Some variations are there, but not when saving a ball or going out because your momentum takes you out.

Peace

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by thedewed

if player touching ball but not in control, then goes out of bounds and leaves ball on court, then is first to touch after coming back on the court, is that good? Or does he need to have both feet down? High school and college same rule? Asking for general rules knowledge, I thought I had seen a few years ago that contrary to conventional wisdom, you only needed one foot back in and the other airborne to be considered in bounds.

NFHS case book plays 7.1.1 Situations A-D address this.

There is no requirement to have both feet inbounds. "Something in and nothing out" makes it legal. I'll let college officials handle their rules sets.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

NFHS case book plays 7.1.1 Situations A-D address this. There is no requirement to have both feet inbounds. "Something in and nothing out" makes it legal.

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.

7.1.1 SITUATION B: A1 blocks a pass near the end line. The ball falls to the floor inbounds, but A1, who is off balance, steps off the court. A1 returns inbounds, secures control of the ball and dribbles. RULING: Legal. A1 did not leave the court voluntarily and did not have control of the ball when he/she did. This situation is similar to one in which A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum carries A1 off the court. If the try is unsuccessful, A1 may come back onto the court and regain control since A1 did not leave the court voluntarily and did not have control of the ball when he/she did.

7.1.1 SITUATION C: A1 blocks a pass near the sideline and the ball goes into A1’s front court. A1’s momentum carries him/her out of bounds. He/she immediately returns inbounds, secures control of the ball, dribbles, shoots, and scores. RULING: Legal. (4-35-1a; 7-1-2; 9-3)

7.1.1 SITUATION D: A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds; (b)returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball; or (c) picks up the ball after returning to the court and then begins a dribble. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). Illegal in (c) as the controlled toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble, dribbling a second time after picking up the ball is an illegal dribble violation. (4-15-5; 4-15-6d; 4-35; 9-5)

If a player's momentum carries the player off the court, that player 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.

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 if a player inadvertently touches 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. A dribbler has committed a violation if they step on or outside a boundary, even though the dribbler is not touching the ball while they are out of bounds. Out-of-bounds violations do not apply to players involved in interrupted dribbles.

[thedewed]

thanks. I do find when playing that nearly everyone thinks that both you can't be last to touch, go out of bounds, then come back in and be first to touch, and they think both feet need to be both back in to re-establish. Wanted to make sure I wasn't misremembering it all.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

... nearly everyone thinks that both you can't be last to touch, go out of bounds, then come back in and be first to touch, and they think both feet need to be both back in to re-establish ...

Agree, which is why it's one of the most important items on my Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1045823

[Coach Bill]

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose". I've seen guys sprinting the floor wide to get to the corner and inadvertently touch a sideline along the way, but are clearly inbounds ready to shoot in the corner by the time the ball is passed to them. Is this a violation? I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose". I've seen guys sprinting the floor wide to get to the corner and inadvertently touch a sideline along the way, but are clearly inbounds ready to shoot in the corner by the time the ball is passed to them. Is this a violation? I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

I don't equate stepping on the boundary line with leaving the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose". I've seen guys sprinting the floor wide to get to the corner and inadvertently touch a sideline along the way, but are clearly inbounds ready to shoot in the corner by the time the ball is passed to them. Is this a violation? I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

The rule (and the caseplays) doesn't make any reference to "voluntarily", "on purpose", "inadvertently", or "intentionally".

Here's the rule:

9-3-3: A player must not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Here are the caseplays:

9.3.3 SITUATION A: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane. A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. RULING: A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. (9-3-3)

9.3.3 SITUATION B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained by the double screen. RULING: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.

9.3.3 SITUATION C: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3's try is in flight. RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

Interpret as you see fit.

I've only seen this called twice in forty years. Once when my partner, as Lead, almost got run over by an offensive player using a double screen near the low post area to get open. The other was an offensive player exiting the lane via the endlne to avoid a three second violation. Can't remember if we called it a three second violation or a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

[justacoach]

Can't remember if we called it a three second violation or a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.[/QUOTE]

In the olden days, was not this action subject to a TF call?

IIRC, changed to a violation, reason given, a lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by justacoach

In the olden days, was not this action subject to a TF call?

IIRC, changed to a violation, reason given, a lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called.

Yes it was a technical foul and was changed to a violation to give more incentive to call it more often.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by justacoach

... violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason ... In the olden days, was not this action subject to a TF call ... changed to a violation, reason given, a lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes it was a technical foul and was changed to a violation to give more incentive to call it more often.

A few years ago I offered a suggestion to the NFHS for a rule change, for the same reason, to change purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds from a technical foul to a violation. They're similar (complementary) infractions. Even offered previous changes (swinging elbows without contact, leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) for the same reason (lesser penalty would increase likelihood of it being called). My suggestion made its way all the way up the ladder to the NFHS Basketball rules committee final agenda, to be voted down.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Is "voluntarily" considered synonymous with "on purpose" ... I would consider inadvertent as not voluntary, but I don't know if there's a case supporting that.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The rule (and the caseplays) doesn't make any reference to "voluntarily", "on purpose", "inadvertently", or "intentionally" ... 9-3-3: A player must not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Thanks Coach Bill. Your post gave me the impetus to make some language changes in my Misunderstood Basketball Rules list

If a player's momentum carries the player off the court, that player can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court for an unauthorized reason, 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 leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

The intent of the three second rule is to not allow an offensive player in the lane to gain an advantage. There is no three second count between the release of a shot, and the control of an offensive rebound, at which time a new count starts. There is no three second count during a throwin. There is no three second count while the ball is in the backcourt. There is a three second count during an interrupted dribble. There is a three second count while an offensive player has one foot in the lane, and one foot outside of the lane, and the three second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane. It’s a violation for a player to step out of bounds for an unauthorized reason in an attempt to avoid a three second violation. Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the lane area for less than three seconds, dribbles, or moves immediately to try for goal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Or does he need to have both feet down? High school and college same rule?

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

There is no requirement to have both feet inbounds. "Something in and nothing out" makes it legal.

For the good of the cause, this has nothing to do with the original post, but both feet down does impact a three second violation, and something in and nothing out legality does not apply to a three second violation.

There is a three second count while an offensive player has one foot in the lane, and one foot outside of the lane, and the three second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane.