Wake up, mick, we're not through arguing. I thought at one point we were winning, but maybe we better not have a roll call vote. By the letter of the law, I can see making the call immediately when the dribbler contacts the line, but it is still my belief that this was not the intent of this rule. This player that steps on the line rarely does so without a reason, defensive pressure, momentum after making a steal, or whatever. But whether one of these things is a factor or not, I still say that the player's realization that he has stepped on a line can constitute an interruption of the dribble if he has the presence of mind to leave the ball for his teammate. A much more likely scenario would be: A1 is dribbling, closely guarded by B1.
The pressure forces A1 to accidently step on the sideline.
Realizing he is out of bounds, A1 instinctively jerks his hand back from the ball, which is quickly picked up by B1, who prepares to swoop in for a game winning dunk. The official whistles the violation, quickly followed by technical fouls on everyone on Team B's bench for "making
such a silly 'literal interpretation' call and costing us an opportunity to win the game."

Wake up, mick, we're not through arguing. I thought at one point we were winning, but maybe we better not have a roll call vote. By the letter of the law, I can see making the call immediately when the dribbler contacts the line, but it is still my belief that this was not the intent of this rule. This player that steps on the line rarely does so without a reason, defensive pressure, momentum after making a steal, or whatever. But whether one of these things is a factor or not, I still say that the player's realization that he has stepped on a line can constitute an interruption of the dribble if he has the presence of mind to leave the ball for his teammate. A much more likely scenario would be: A1 is dribbling, closely guarded by B1.
The pressure forces A1 to accidently step on the sideline.
Realizing he is out of bounds, A1 instinctively jerks his hand back from the ball, which is quickly picked up by B1, who prepares to swoop in for a game winning dunk. The official whistles the violation, quickly followed by technical fouls on everyone on Team B's bench for "making
such a silly 'literal interpretation' call and costing us an opportunity to win the game." [/B][/QUOTE]JAR,I agree with you and mick. What violation could you possibly call immediately on the dribbler? Touching a live ball while having full in-bounds status? Don't think that you can find a rule to make that one fly. There's no violation unless the dribbler comes back in bounds immediately, and(in your judgement)it is not an interrupted dribble.It's only common sense that the violation occurs on the re-touch.The dribbler hasn't officially touched the ball after being OOB to commit a violation until that re-touch!

I've stayed out of this, b/c frankly I thought the answer was completely obvious. But I think mick is saying that my interpretation of the situation would be incorrect. Just for clarity, is this what we're talking about ---

A1 dribbling the ball. Dribble is never interrupted. While the ball is not in contact with A1, A1 steps on the boundary line. Before A1 touches the ball for the next dribble, the official rules this an OOB violation on A1. Is the official correct?

If this is the question that we're trying to answer, I have always thought that the answer was yes. Isn't the rationalization that A1 has player control during the dribble, even when A1 is not touching the ball? If A1 has player control, and then is OOB, the ball is also OOB. I think the note that Camron quoted is pretty clear. What have I missed?

When does the dribbler stop being the dribbler?
 

As I understand the discussion, this is the crux of the argument(s) - Does the dribbler stop being the dribbler when he/she chooses to not touch the ball? If not, then dribbler is out of bounds - clear violation. If so, then was the dribbler still the dribbler at the time he/she stepped out of bounds? I hear Mick saying no and dttb saying yes. I think this might be a judgement call, but I would tend to want to err on the side of the dribbler - similar to the situation where I thought there might have been a travel but wasn't sure - no call.

Chuck,
By that definition, a player inside the endline could throw a long bounce pass (<I>starting a dribble</I>) toward his basket and his momentum could cause him to step on his near endline, and you would call an out-of-bounds violation when he stepped on that line regardless of what the ball was doing.
Likewise, a previous thread scenario:
<li>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.


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

On track
 

Mick you continually give scenarios where the dribbler is out of control - the ball is going one direction and the player is going a different direction; he has fallen down or due to his momentum has gone out of bounds, etc as the ball bounds ONTO the court. The dribbler cannot reasonably continue his dribble - I'm not saying he legally couldn't but reasonably, could not physically continue because the ball is bounding away from the dribbler. I agree,it would not be correct to call an OOB violation for these scenarios because the dribbler could not reasonably retouch the ball and continue his dribble... no violation. You are absolutely right.

A completely different situation is the dribbler that COULD continue his dribble (the ball is still moving in the same direction and at the same speed as the dribbler). The scenario I am pleading is one of a dribbler that could retouch, one that has not really lost control but chooses to abandon his dribble because he has stepped OOB. He could retouch but chooses not to continue - VIOLATION. The dribble did not end until after he had stepped on the line and then made a decision to not retouch. This sure seems to fit under the Note of Rule 9-3. I say this because I feel the dribble did not end until the dribbler consciously made the decision to not retouch and at this point he has already stepped on the line. Perhaps this is stretching the rule but it sure seems appropriate to me.

If this discussion continues, please discuss this scenario and not the one of a dramatic save where the player ends up three rows into the stands. Nobody is going to call that OOB unless the player stepped OOB and then touched the ball.

A1 dribbling the ball. Dribble is never interrupted. While the ball is not in contact with A1, A1 steps on the boundary line. Before A1 touches the ball for the next dribble, the official rules this an OOB violation on A1. Is the official correct?

If this is the question that we're trying to answer, I have always thought that the answer was yes. Isn't the rationalization that A1 has player control during the dribble, even when A1 is not touching the ball? If A1 has player control, and then is OOB, the ball is also OOB. I think the note that Camron quoted is pretty clear. What have I missed? [/B][/QUOTE]1)You don't know for sure whether the dribble is interrupted or not until the dribbler actually comes back in and touches the ball. That's when you make your decision as to whether whether it actually was a legal dribble or an interrupted dribble. R4-15-5.
2)The rationalization that the dribbler may have had player control may be correct, but the question is still WHEN the violation occurs. I say that you can't find me a violation on the dribbler anywhere under R4-35,R7-1,or R7-2. If you can find me a rule saying that the dribbler violated ANYTHING before coming back in and touching the ball after being OOB ,please let me know. I can't find one.I also say that R9-3Penalty says- "The ball is dead <b>when</b> the violation occurs....! If the dribbler NEVER touches the ball,there can't be a violation,can there? Find me a rule that says he has actually violated something when he doesn't touch the ball again. R9-3 is never applicable because the dribbler never meets the provision of it if he doesn't touch the ball again.The dribbler has simply ended his dribble legally by <b>not</b> touching a live ball in-bounds again.

Re: On track
 

A1 dribbling down sideline towards B1. As B1 reaches in A1 steps OOB before B1 cleanly steals the ball off the dribble - note A1 is OOB but has yet to touch the ball. B1 is now heading down court for an easy layup, you blow the whistle for OOB?

I hope not.

Great point! Dan, I really that you have the same thoughts that I have on these types of plays. Let the play develop and END, before you even think of calling something. Then, make your mind up as to whether the call is necessary or not. Don't call ANYTHING before it actually happens!

I think that is quite pertinent all though this discussion.

No way, mick. A long bounce pass may be the start of a dribble, but it is not necessarily a dribble. If it were, then we would have double dribble violations every time a player ended his dribble and then threw a bounce pass. Your scenario above does not fit the conclusion you want to draw.

This is obviously an interrupted dribble, which is why the ball is not OOB. The dribbler didn't step out in that scenario.

I see your point, I just think it's wrong. Here's the rule Camron posted, and I don't see how there's any real debate about it:

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.

Again, my two cents, but I don't see how there can be this much debate about it.

Come on, JR. Shake off the anesthesia, dude! :) You can't tell if a player is dribbling or not? Forget all the permutations about a defender reaching for the ball, or the long bounce pass. A1 is dribbling the ball in the frontcourt, near the sideline. While still dribbling, A1 begins his move to the basket and his back foot touches the boundary line. A1's hand is not in contact with the ball until after the back foot is raised off the boundary line.

Is this a violation? If so, when? I contend that it's a violation as soon as the dribbler touches the OOB line, based on the "Question" at the end of 9-3. He's obviously dribbling. He steps on the line. Tweet.


Camron already posted it on page 3. 9-3, Question.

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.

This tells me that the violation occurs immediately when the dribbler steps OOB. The only way for you to deny that is to claim that the dribbler ceases to be a dribbler when he's not touching the ball. And that just seems silly to me.

Re: Re: On track
 

By rule, I really think the ball is dead as soon as A1 touches OOB, which in your scenario is before B1 makes the steal. So the "ugliness" factor of blowing the whistle while B1 is "heading down court for an easy layup" is not a factor in the play.

The play ended as soon as the player in control of the ball stepped OOB. I don't want to muddy the waters, but this is the same as an airborne shooter; if he commits a foul then the play is dead immediately because he had player control at the time, even if the shot has been released. Likewise, if the dribbler has player control (and by definition, he must, otherwise he's not a dribbler), any violation kills the play immediately. Since he has player control when he steps OOB, the ball is OOB immediately, regardless of whether he's touching the ball or not.

Ok, I've beat this horse long enough. Somebody tell me why I'm wrong. :)

Re: On track
 

Fun ain't it? :)

DownTownTonyBrown,

Let's find the difference:

Obviously common interpretation:
Dribbling --> steps on line --> <font color = red>*whistle*</font> --> does not retouch --> OOB

My scenarios:
Dribbling --> steps on line --> <font size = 1/3 color = white>nothing</font> --> does not retouch --> play on.

Dribbling --> steps on line --> <font size = 1/3 color = white>nothing</font> --> <font color = green>Retouches - dribble continues</font> --> <font color = red>*whistle*</font>--> OOB

I can find no other rule to even partially back-up the poorly written, singular note that the ball is out of bounds while it has last touched a player, <u>and</u> the floor, <b><u>in bounds</u></b> but is out of bounds because we imagine what a player may possibly due.

If the common interpretation of that note is correct, then we must add exceptions <i>and more notes</i> to ball location, player location, dribbling and use words like maybe, possibly, presumed intent.

The Note interpretation cannot be back-up with anything (no other rule, no other case, no other imagined situation) other than gut feeling and relentless belief in the unbelievable phrase of "just cuz".

mick