Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1051234)

... now has to know when the pass was released from an area where normally they shouldn't be looking or might not even be able to see at all.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051296)

9-3-3: Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they are the first player to touch the ball after returning to the court or if they left the court to avoid a violation.



A2 runs out of bounds around a double screen and comes back onto the court and catches a pass from A1 ...

A) A1 was holding(touching) the ball after A2 reentered the playing court.

B) A1's pass was already on the way (released) after A2 reentered the playing court.

Legal in A, illegal in B?

First to touch?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1051297)

Both a violation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051296)

9-3-3: Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they are the first player to touch the ball after returning to the court or if they left the court to avoid a violation.

A2 runs out of bounds around a double screen and comes back onto the court and catches a pass from A1 ... A1 was holding (touching) the ball after A2 reentered the playing court

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051299)

Wouldn't A2 be the second to touch the ball after returning to the court?

Wouldn't A1 be the first to touch the ball the ball after A2 returned to the court?

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051300)

Under your logic the rule would only apply if A2 came inbounds when no other player has PC.

The point of that particular element of the rule is to prevent A1 passing to A2 after A2 returns inbounds.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051296)

A2 runs out of bounds around a double screen and comes back onto the court and catches a pass from A1 ... A1's pass was already on the way (released) after A2 reentered the playing court.

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1051298)

The way I understood the interpreters predeythr other day A would be legal.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051300)

Under your logic the rule would only apply if A2 came inbounds when no other player has PC.

The point of that particular element of the rule is to prevent A1 passing to A2 after A2 returns inbounds.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051303)

in A it is legal if the never throw the ball to the player or throw it to another player first.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051296)

A2 runs out of bounds around a double screen and comes back onto the court and catches a pass from A1 ... A) A1 was holding (touching) the ball after A2 reentered the playing court.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051305)

Agree.



Who was the first to touch the ball after A2 reentered the playing court?

A1 was the first to touch the ball after A2 reentered the playing court (he was touching it after A2 reentered the playing court before he passed it to A2).

9-3-3: A player shall not step out of bounds under the player’s own volition and then become the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court ...

Perhaps we should refer to A1 as "Player Zero"?

Is there an ordinal number for zero?

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051306)

A1 was not the first to touch the ball. They had the ball already.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051307)

Thanks JRutledge.

I really like your simple, yet highly rational and thoughtful, explanation.

Hopefully we'll get some new casebook plays, or new annual interpretations (due soon), to clear this up.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051309)

In my 18 years of officiating men's college basketball, I may have made that call 5 times. I wouldn't obsess about it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1051298)

The way I understood the interpreters presentation the other day A would be legal.