Questions?

[Hawks Coach]

mick
You seem hesitant to exercise judgment in this case. You do it with fouls - was it an attempt to play the ball or did he intentionally foul the player? That's your judgment of intent. Same with this play.

If you wish to abdicate your right to make this judgment, you can call it the same every time - no violation. But you are free to judge intent, and I would argue that if you are watching the dribbler, most times you will know what happened. If you aren't sure, you should go with no violation. But if you see the dribbler clearly change his actions only after stepping on the line, then he was dribbling when he stepped on the line, IMO.

[mick]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
mick
You seem hesitant to exercise judgment in this case. You do it with fouls - was it an attempt to play the ball or did he intentionally foul the player? That's your judgment of intent. Same with this play.

If you wish to abdicate your right to make this judgment, you can call it the same every time - no violation. But you are free to judge intent, and I would argue that if you are watching the dribbler, most times you will know what happened. If you aren't sure, you should go with no violation. But if you see the dribbler clearly change his actions only after stepping on the line, then he was dribbling when he stepped on the line, IMO.

Hawks Coach,
What's the violation?
Ball Out-of-bounds - Ball never touched out of bounds 4-4
Player Out-of-bounds - So what? Wasn't touching the ball 4-35
Player leaving the court - accidentally stepping out-of-bounds is not illegal 10-3-3
Causing the ball to go out of bounds (Note: the dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on the line or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds. 9-3)- Wasn't dribbling, but had been dribbling and was passing 4-31. Player did not dribble, step out of bounds, continue dribbling and get called for the *retouch*. Player did not *retouch*.

mick

[mick]

For those who have the 2003-2004 Comic book, Pg. 49 clearly illustrates the intent of "even though he/she is not touching the ball at the time, has violated" and the *retouch*.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by mick
For those who have the 2003-2004 Comic book, Pg. 49 clearly illustrates the intent of "even though he/she is not touching the ball at the time, has violated" and the *retouch*.

A picture really is worth a thousand words, isn't it? I think this picture shows the intent of the rule is that the violation occurs when the player continues the dribble after stepping out of bounds. If the player realizes his mistake and does not continue the dribble, no violation.
We win, mick.

[Adam]

It seems to me that the question centers on when you blow the whistle. Do you blow it when a dribbler steps out of bounds, or after she touches the ball again?

[just another ref]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
It seems to me that the question centers on when you blow the whistle. Do you blow it when a dribbler steps out of bounds, or after she touches the ball again?

I agree. I think the answer is not until she touches the ball again, which is indicated in the picture indicated above.

[mick]

Originally posted by just another ref

A picture really is worth a thousand words, isn't it? I

...Maybe a myth dispelled.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by mick

What's the violation?
Ball Out-of-bounds - Ball never touched out of bounds 4-4
Oviously not applicable

Player Out-of-bounds - So what? Wasn't touching the ball 4-35. Player leaving the court - accidentally stepping out-of-bounds is not illegal 10-3-3
Also, obviously not applicable.

Causing the ball to go out of bounds (Note: the dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on the line or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds. 9-3)-
THIS IS APPLICABLE

Wasn't dribbling,
Ahhh HA! "Wasn't dribbling." This is your decision. What makes you feel that the dribble has ended? Surely, as shown in the comedian's guide, if he continues to dribble (retouches), he has violated and the dribble did not end when he stepped OOB. This is not news JARef. This obviously violates the Note of 9-3.

but had been dribbling and was passing 4-31.
Surely you don't feel that intentionally allowing the ball to bounce away during mid-dribble is a pass and hopefully you don't feel it is an interrupted dribble. My opinion is that the dribble has not yet ended. And that if he did not step OOB he could allow the ball to bounce a few extra times and then catch up and continue dribbling. No violation - dribble didn't end.

a Player did not dribble, step out of bounds, continue dribbling and get called for the *retouch*. Player did not *retouch*.

mick

So for me, the crux of the matter really comes with "When do you feel the dribble ends?" Did the dribble end before he stepped on the line - as though he were passing, or attempting to save a ball headed OOB and he goes one way and the ball goes another. Or do you feel the dribble ended after he stepped on the line and says "I'm not going to retouch."

From what I envision of this play, I'm thinking the latter is the case we are discussing - the ball and the dribbler are still, pretty much going the same direction parallel to the OOB line, and that the dribbler recognized he had stepped OOB and made a decision to not retouch. I would call this a violation at the time he stepped OOB. I would not call it an OOB violation if I felt the dribbler pushed the ball away from himself so it is moving in a new and different direction and then the dribbler subsequently stepped or fell OOB.

So, to the original poster, justification is given for both sides of the decision.

[mick]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
So, to the original poster, justification is given for both sides of the decision.

DownTownTonyBrown,
Where is the *justification* without retouching?
It seems the only justification is a wish, or a "just cuz".

Let's have a player fast breaking down court and catching a pass. He takes two dribbles and loses his balance (I dunno,... cramp, shoelace, coordination), but he leaves the ball on the court before he steps on the line, or over the line. He is now outa play and watching 9 guys go after the ball possibly from the seat of his shorts.

We ain't callin' him for a violation.
No retouch ---> no violation.
mick

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick


Let's have a player fast breaking down court and catching a pass. He takes two dribbles and loses his balance (I dunno,... cramp, shoelace, coordination), but he leaves the ball on the court before he steps on the line, or over the line. He is now outa play and watching 9 guys go after the ball possibly from the seat of his shorts.

Woudn't this be an interrupted dribbler?

You know, dribbler momentarily gets away from the ball?

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Woudn't this be an interrupted dribbler?

You know, dribbler momentarily gets away from the ball?

Could be, Sparky!
...Depending how he landed, he could been rupted.

[Nevadaref]

I don't believe that a retouch is required for a violation. Only that the official believes the dribbler had control at the time of stepping OOB.
My two cents.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

Could be, Sparky!
...Depending how he landed, he could been rupted.

Like if he deflected off the table? (that has GOT to hurt)

[mick]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I don't believe that a retouch is required for a violation. Only that the official believes the dribbler had control at the time of stepping OOB.
My two cents.

Nevadaref,
Can you rationalize your stance with something other than gut feeling?
mick

[Camron Rust]

RULE 9 SECTION 3 OUT OF BOUNDS
A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds.
Question - The dribbler steps on or outside a boundary, but does not touch the ball while he or she is out of bounds. Is this a violation? Answer - Yes.


It says nothing about having to retouch. If they are a dribbler, it is OOB the instant they touch OOB.