1. A1 Dribbling along side line, ball is not in hand, steps on line, does not touch ball again, a2 picks up ball, did a1 cause a violation.

2. Do you have 30 seconds to replace an injured player if you don't call time out.

3. What happens to the 3-second count during an interrupted dribble.

4. Does the Defense have to hit the ball away to cause an interrupted dribble or can the dribbler cause it themself.

5. if a player is directed to leave the game because of an untucked shirt can it be corrected by a time out and the player return.

6. On blood or injury when do you have to call time out by so the player can return if the problem is corrected.

Other than wanting to know the answer, why do you ask these particular unrelated questions?

I’m studying for the test next week and unclear on there areas.

Depends on what you see. Did you think A1 was dribbling when she stepped on line and only abandoned the dribble because she stepped on line, or did A1 give up dribble before stepping on line?

What is the situation - player is down and play is stopped for more than 30 sec, or player is off the floor on the bench and you aren't replacing them?

New rule as of last year is that it continues.

If the defense touches the ball it is not an interrupted dribble - the dribble has ended. Offense can catch ball and start another dribble. On an interrupted dribble, offense loses ball and can only catch to end dribble or continue the dribble.

If the player has already left the game and the clock has not re-started, they cannot re-enter until the clock has started. so if they were directed to leave and they wer subbed for, then they cannot return until the next stoppage of play after the clock starts.

Before you have subbed for the player - see above.

[/B][/QUOTE]

If in your judgment the ball was in the control of the dribbler (does not mean touching it) when A1 stepped OOB, then it is a violation. If you feel that control had been relinquished before A1 stepped OOB, then you no longer have a dribbler, so you don't have a violation. 4-15-6d

YES, always! Once the player and those attending to him on the court have returned to the bench, an official should start a 30 second clock for replacing him. See 10.5.1 Situation A.

Nothing, since there is team control during an interrupted dribble, the 3-second rule is in effect and a violation may be called. This was a rule change last year. There was even a notice on NFHS website last year that said they messed up and should have stricken the words "or interrupted dribble" from casebook play 9.7.2, shame on them for leaving those words in again this year!

Look at the definitions of how a dribble ends (4-15-4d) and interrupted dribble. You will find that a bat by a defender ends a dribble, so this is not an interrupted dribble. An interrupted dribble (4-15-5) only occurs when the ball gets away from the dribbler or deflects off him.

No. The TO rule applies only to injured or bleeding players, not uniform problems. Look at 3-3-4 , 5, and 6. Article 4 says he must stay out. Article 5 makes an exception for an injured player if a TO is taken. Article 6 makes an exception for a bleeding player if a TO is taken. Since a player directed to leave the game for a uniform problem is not covered under either time-out exception, he MUST leave the game.

If you go by the wording of the rules the TO should, technically, be requested before the player is directed to leave the game. Strictly speaking, once the player has been directed to leave it is too late to keep him in the game with a TO. 3-3-5,6

#5 - Once the player is directed to leave the game, the subsitution must be made before you can grant a TO.

NevadaRef,
We cannot rule a violation here. There is no rule for that.
A1 stepped on the line after A1 last touched the ball.
Where do I read more about *relinquished control*?
mick

I think what NVRef is saying is that if player control exists when A1 steps OOB, it doesn't matter if he's touching the ball or not. It's an immediate violation.

Help me understand, Tony.
I don't know why. Doesn't make sense to me at all.
Sounds silly.
mick

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying.

How can that be??!!!?
 

NevadaRef,
By what rule do we know that A1 did not end his dribble?
From U.P. here it looks like he stopped dribbling because he knew he caught the line with his foot, or he dropped a pass to A2.
mick

mick, I looked for the case play, which I thought was in the book but may have been on the NF website a couple of years ago. (I bet Bob J. has it saved or printed) But the play basically said that if a dribbler stepped OOB, it was a violation whether he touched the ball when he was OOB or not. In the case described, we would have to determine if the dribbler still had PC when he stepped OOB or if an interrupted dribble had already occurred.

Re: How can that be??!!!?
 

It is purely a judgment call. That is why I wrote, "If in your judgment the ball was in the control of the dribbler..."

I remember that, Tony.
No, that's totally different, if A1 continues to dribble.
That cannot apply when he never touches the ball again before someone else touches it.
The dribble ended when A2 touched the ball.
mick

Re: Re: How can that be??!!!?
 

NevadaRef,
When A2 touched the ball, we don't guess.
The dribble is did.
mick

Mick,
If A2 touches the ball BEFORE A1 steps OOB, then it is clear and I agree with you. However, as the play was described above A1 steps OOB before A2 comes and gets the ball. I think that the official is required to use his judgment in this case to determine whether A1 still had control or not.

That dog don't hunt, NevadaRef.

Actually, it's not different. As soon as A1 touches OOB, it's a violation. He does not have to touch the ball again.

There are is just one question. Did A2 touch the ball and end the dribble before A1 stepped out? As you said, the dribble ended when A2 touched it. If A1 went OOB before the touch, it's a violation, as there was not an interrupted dribble and the dribble still existed. If not, play on.

Nope. A1 batted the ball to A2. ...A pass.
When A1 went out-of-bounds he was no longer dribbling.

Hmmmm...okay.

Sorry coach what I saw was the dribbler realized that he stepped OOB and therefore left the ball alone... it bounced two more times and then A2 retreived it. OOB violation. :D

Mick, the orginal scenario didn't say he batted the ball. You have added to the original scenario.

I can see your point but the dribbler would have had to obviously get rid of the dribble before he stepped OOB - either passed or obviously pushed the ball away from himself before he stepped out. Then as Tony said Hmmm okay.

interrupted dribble
 

4-15-5 An interrupted dribble occurs......after (the ball)
momentarily gets away from the dribbler.

The key here as I see it is the word away. There is no certain distance necessary. In this case the ball gets away because the dribbler allows it to do so in order to avoid a violation.

If the dribbler allows the ball to get away because he has steppted on the line, that implies he is in control at the time he steps on the line. It is a violation. Now a smart dribbler will probably avoid an OOB call more that 50% of the time by letting the ball go, but if the only reason he doesn't touch the ball again is because he is on the line, the violation has already occurred.

The question does not indicate that an interrupted dribble occurred prior to A1 stepping OOB. Violation.

I'm sure we have the original poster quite connfused by now. :(

Not that it matters ...
 

I am with Mick on this one.

The dribbler made a decision to end the dribble by not touching the ball after the last dribble BEFORE going OOB. That is obvious. Now, you who want to call a violation are saying the dribbler made the decision not to dribble after stepping on the oob line and those who don't want to call a violation can say the dribbler made that decision before stepping on the oob line (he/she could see it coming). Since when do we call violations based on what a player is thinking? We have to call the game based on what happened.

Last touch by A1 was legal, in bounds. A1 goes oob. A1 knows he/she can't continue the dribble and so does not touch the ball. A2 grabs ball. Sounds legal to me.

Re: Not that it matters ...
 

The dribbler cannot choose to abandon his dribble after he has stepped out of bounds - that is a violation.

If the dribbler makes a choice to abondon his dribble first (by passing the ball or batting it away from himself) and then steps out of bounds, this is okay - no violation.

But again, recognizing that you have stepped OOB and therefore, now, discontinue the dribble... is too late. The violation has already ocurred at the time the line was stepped on.

Not much to disagree with unless it is the first statement I made above. And I think that one is pretty well supported by the rules.

A dribble is a batting/pushing of the ball to the floor.
A one-handed bounce pass, off the dribble, is the same action. Is there a further definition or qualification for that act to be a dribble or to be a pass? No.

Saving a ball near a line by batting the ball to a teammate and then stepping out-of-bounds may be construed as dribbling, or as passing ???
Are we gonna call a violation on a player because we unilaterally considered the act as being a dribble, because it meets the definition of a start of a dribble?

For consistency, such an action should not be a violation when someone else touches the ball next.

mick

mick
You obiviously have to see this one. But if you have a dribbler who is taking normal dribble, and the last push looked like every other push, it was a dribble not a pass. In that case, subsequently stepping on the line is a violation. This is true even if the dribbler then takes the abnormal action of avoiding contact with the ball for a subsequent dribble.

Essentially, you have to look at this play and ask yourself what the first "different" action was. If the player pushed the ball away in a different direction in anticipation of stepping on the line, it is an interrupted dribble or potentially a pass. If the player dribbled normally and their first abnormal act was avoiding the ball as it bounced up because he was already OOB, it is a violation because he was still dribbling when he stepped on the line, and only stopped when he avoided the ball after stepping on the line.

In the end, you can call this either way and be right, because it truly depends on what you see.

Re: Re: Not that it matters ...
 

DownTownTonyBrown,
Way, way to arbitrary!
Would you then verbalize such a reason to his coach, or just do it telepathically? ;)
mick

Hawks Coach,
"...Different action"? ..."Abnormal act"?
I don't have that page. ;)
mick

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 (<I>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</I>)- 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

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" <u>and</u> the *retouch*.

This is the evidence I was looking for.....
 

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.

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.

Re: This is the evidence I was looking for.....
 

...<B>Maybe</B> a myth dispelled.

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.

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>I dunno,... cramp, shoelace, coordination</I>), 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Re: Re: Re: On track
 

IMO this accounts for the dribbler who alternates a step OOB with the actual touch of the ball during the dribble and does not adress my play at all.

Yes, This is the point
 

Although your changes of the scenario were not too subtle... Chuck has again shown the exact point of the rule.

NOTE: The dribbler has committed a violaiton if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

It says nothing about retouching. It says nothing about loosing the ball. It says nothing about interrupted dribble. IT JUST SAYS THE DRIBBLER HAS VIOLATED IF HE STEPS ON A LINE. So the question again is "Is he still a dribbler when he steps on a line - even though he is going to make a decision here in a split second and say "Hey, I don't want to dribble anymore." It is still the same question WAS THIS GUY A DRIBBLER WHEN HE STEPPED ON THE LINE? Obviously, if the answer is YES, then this is a violation.

Now also obviously, these other nitwit scenarios that some of you keep coming up with ... he is no longer a dribbler after B1 has stolen the ball, or after he has slapped it back towards the court and fallen out of bounds, or tripped on his shoelace and fallen on the line as the ball bounces away - even if the wind is blowing from the west and it is a Thursday morning and the other team has Wilt Chamberlin playing. No violation in these scenarios.

Re: Yes, This is the point
 

nitwit?

Interesting debating style you have.

BTW, **** you.

:(

<font color = red>mick </font>

Re: Yes, This is the point
 

Interesting commentary.
Thank you for your reply.
I now understand your interpretation.
mick

It slipped, sorry. No offense intended.
 

And your responses or debating styles are to ignore the question or change the scenario again so that we can eventually come to your answer?

Sorry for the use of the word "nitwit" but the scenarios you guys keep posing have an obvious answer, that I have reiterated again and again. Those are not violations. You are right!

Yet you keep telling me that the only way you would call OOB is if the dribbler retouches the ball. Rule 9-3 tells me the violation has ocurred BEFORE the dribbler retouches or continues to dribble. Maybe I'm using the wrong ear but I haven't heard justification to say the dribbler must retouch the ball before an OOB violation has ocurred.

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. [/B][/QUOTE]Touching the ball again immediately after being OOB and then coming back in-bounds is the violation,and that is what R9-3 is telling you.If the player NEVER DOES TOUCH THE BALL after stepping OOB, then what particular violation in the rulebook then covers the play? R9-3 doesn't. The player has NEVER caused the ball to go OOB if he ends his dribble by NOT touching the ball again AFTER going OOB.Please find me a rule that says different.

I'm leaving with Elvis now.

Touching the ball again immediately after being OOB and then coming back in-bounds is the violation,and that is what R9-3 is telling you.If the player NEVER DOES TOUCH THE BALL after stepping OOB, then what particular violation in the rulebook then covers the play? R9-3 doesn't. The player has NEVER caused the ball to go OOB if he ends his dribble by NOT touching the ball again AFTER going OOB.Please find me a rule that says different. [/B][/QUOTE]

R9-3Q doesn't mention anything about coming back in and touching it. It says that the instant A1 steps on the line, it is a violation if A1 is a dribbler. If the player choses to end their dribble by not touching it again after touching OOB, it's too late. THey have already violated.

None of that stuff is in my book,
...but I can imagine it is.

My logic, right or wrong, leads me to think that this rule was written to prevent a player from stepping out of bounds while dribbling, whether the player is out of bounds at the time the player is touching the ball or not.

My view:
A dribble occurs when the ball goes from the hand(s) to the floor and back up to a hand again. If the ball does not return to the hand after bouncing off the floor, I think it is reasonable to determine the dribble ended after the last legal dribble. I would require the player retouch the ball after having stepped OOB to judge the player as still dribbling, then whistle a violation.

None of that stuff is in my book. . .
but I can imagine that it is. :shrug:

This is our fundamental difference of opinion. I think the question in 9-3 covers it precisely. That question doesn't ask about what happens when the dribbler touches the ball after being OOB. It asks about what happens when the dribbler steps on the boundary line, without touching the ball.

This is obviously a tomato/tomahto thing, but for the life of me, I can't imagine how.

If 9-3 doesn't cover it then nothing in the NFHS rulebook covers it. I feel it is the only thing that covers it.

By what you seem to be saying JR, it would then be okay to be dribbling, step on the line, but don't touch the ball while OOB, let the ball bounce once by itself, place both your feet back in bounds, and essentially start a new dribble - because the previous dribble ended BEFORE you stepped on the line, before you decided to not touch the ball again and allowed the ball to bounce by itself and before you reestablished your position in bounds. Is this okay JR, Dan quadruple star? I would guess that you are not going to allow this. If you did, then there would be no reason for the note.

If you aren't saying the above then I would assume that you are saying that it is the retouching that causes the violation. And I must assume that it is the retouching as a continuation of the dribble that causes the violation (What if he stepped OOB and immediately jumped back in bounds, both feet inbounds on the floor, and caught the ball - thereby stopping the dribble. Is that okay? I again guess that you would not allow that either.) Does that mean there is a rule stating: Violation if you are dribbling, step out of bounds and are the first one to touch the ball after you return to the floor. That's not a rule. Show me that rule. Perhaps you must accept this jump back in and catch the ball scenario as legal. I don't see how you can justify saying that 9-3 is not applicable if you don't.

Aaaaah, I'm fed up with this discussion. It's taxing my brain for a situation I've never seen and probably never will - a player that is quick enough witted to stop his dribble and stand OOB letting his dribble bounce away.

5 pages later! Could have spent my time more wisely. ;) Apologies all around!

:)

Play: Dribbler A1 steps on the OOB line, but doesn't retouch the ball. Despite Coach B's howls, Mick lets play continue and explains A1 wasn't a dribbler unless he retouched the ball.

Late in the game, A leads by 1 with time running out. B1 obtains legal guarding position on dribbler A1. A1 runs into B1, B1 is knocked to the floor and the ball bounces away without being retouched by A1. Mick blows his whistle just as the horn sounds.

Mick reports a player control foul and prepares to leave the court. Coach B says to Mick, "We should shoot FTs -- A1 wasn't a dribbler during the contact since he didn't retouch the ball. Therefore, the foul can't be a PC foul."

Mick responds .... ?

Bob,
...Wondered where you were.

Mick responds .... ?

"Well, coach, the foul killed the ball as it does in all instances of called fouls, but stepping on a line without the ball is always okay. " ;)

mick

If A1 steps on the OOB line just before he charges into B1,but he's not touching the ball when he stepped on the line or when the contact occurs, are you gonna just call an immediate OOB violation on A1, Bob, and ignore the charge as being incidental contact during a dead ball?

Not me, I'm calling a PC foul.

If you're not going to call him OOB b/c of the fact that he's not touching the ball, why would you call a PC foul? He's not touching the ball when the contact occurs, he's not dribbling, right? So this is a common foul. Blech.

If you're not going to call him OOB b/c of the fact that he's not touching the ball, why would you call a PC foul? He's not touching the ball when the contact occurs, he's not dribbling, right? So this is a common foul. Blech. [/B][/QUOTE]When does the dribbler in this case lose player control of the ball, by rule? When the contact occurs- that's when!! That's why it's a PC foul, and not a common foul. That's the exact same reasoning as saying that the violation occurs immediately when the ball is re-touched after the dribbler comes back in-bounds.

Now go back to the question. Are YOU gonna call an immediate violation in that case,and ignore the subsequent train wreck?

Btw....Blech? Blech? That's embarrassing. I'll e-mail you a few that you can try instead of "blech". Don't let the kids see 'em though.

So if the kids can't see 'em, what's Chuck supposed to do with 'em?

In a word, yes.

No you're not. You're too good.

On my understanding, and nobody here has convinced me that I'm wrong, when the dribbler steps on the line (even without touching the ball at the time), it's the same as if he'd dribbled the ball on the line. He is OOB and the ball is dead. I'm not going to wait to see if there's a crash, or if he "retouches" the ball. Because the ball is already dead. So if he steps on the line and then we have a crash, I have the ball OOB to the defense and I judge whether the crash was intentional or flagrant.

So in all honesty, I would without hesitation call the OOB violation and ignore the crash. I am NOT playing devil's advocate, as I sometimes do.

As I said, this is obviously a potato/potahto issue. But I honestly can't see how you can interpret it the way you do.

Well, if we keep this going a few more pages, NFHS may deem it necessary to add some more words to the poorly written thing.

Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion. <LI> 1. dribbling the sideline<LI>2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball<LI>3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

I'll scan it to you.
mick

Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion. <LI> 1. dribbling the sideline<LI>2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball<LI>3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

[/B][/QUOTE]Mick,quit using logic. You'll end up taking all of the fun oughta this thread! :D

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: Originally posted by mick Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49. They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion. <LI> 1. dribbling the sideline<LI>2. stepping on the <font color = red>mine</font> and not touching the ball<LI>3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline. Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

Mick,quit using logic. You'll end up taking all of the fun oughta this thread! :D [/QUOTE]


Oooh! Stepping on a mine? I think that happened on this subject.
Where did edred go? He started it. :)

mick, did you read the information under the illustration?

"A player who is dribbling (player control) and steps out of bounds during the dribble, even though he/she is not touching the ball at the time, has violated."

You call the violation when the player steps OOB, not when he touches the ball again. Look at the picture onn the left.

If you don't believe me or Chuck, surely you believe Bob Jenkins.

You know what? The more I wrestle with this question, the more I think that it (like a lot of other test questions) is
really a non-issue. If a dribbler is in a normal posture dribbling the ball and steps on a line, the whistle will go off quick enough that he will not have time to put up his hands and make a show of not dribbling again. The official in this case probably will not actually know (or need to know) whether the dribbler touched the ball and the line at the same time or not. If the dribbler loses his footing, even slightly, and touches the line, even though the ball may be close at hand, I think we have an interrupted dribble. In this case, not only would touching the line not be a violation, the dribbler would be allowed to step back in bounds and resume his dribble. I would have to see the play, ("Ball games are not played on paper, they are played inside television sets." Kenny Mayne) but I think I have been converted.

JAR, of course that is the way that you're gonna call it in the real world. Always a violation for being OOB unless something different occurs with it, such as an interrupted dribble happening at exactly the same time(in the official's opinion). When they put in the "interruped dribble" language, the main criteria to judge whether it occurred or not was "whether the dribbler could immediately continue his dribble." If they couldn't, in the official's opinion, you had an interrupted dribble.

The language in the book on this particular play is murky, though.

Around here, we thrive on murky language! Our goal is to make Chuck's head explode! :D

PS- Don't get me wrong though. Mick's claims are certainly logical and defensible under the murky language,imo.

Thanks, mick. I got the picture. And now, I can at least see how you could interpret it the way you do. And now, I also agree completely with you. The third picture is uncessary; I mean, unnecessary. :)

Bob and Tony seem to have the same interp that I do. I can live with that.

I have offered mechanically similar scenarios, definitions of ball location, dribble, player location, ... a picture.
I offer consistency of ruling.

What do I get? ...The recitation of merely a poorly written note to a written rule which requires additional exceptions in order to tie the rules together, ... and "Just cuz".
"Just Cuz" and "Just is' are baseball rules.

I await the retouch.
And don't call me Shirley. ;)

mick

[pick one or more]
It was dark and I couldn't see my fingers.
--or--
I can't spell good.
--or--
The letters were uncessary.
--or--
Just cuz.

mick

If A1 travels just before he charges into B1, are you going to call the travel or the charge?

Is A1's hand in contact with the ball at the time of the charge? :)

In that funny book triad, the third pane is just giving a play example. It is not saying the retouch is required to have a violation.


Bob's example regarding a PC foul and a dribbler hits the nail right on the head. The PC foul, like the OOB violation, doesn't depend on what happens next. The player is a dribbler or is not a dribblre. The player is in or they are out. If they are a dribbler and step OOB, it is a violation that instant.

If the player steps out before contact (as was suggested in a related case), I'm certainly calling OOB and ignoring the subsequent train wreck.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 19th, 2003 at 12:54 PM]

:D

Exceptions required
 

...the foul killed the ball as it does <u>in all instances of called fouls</u>, <font color =red> but stepping on a line without the ball is always okay. " ...except for that funny little Note. </font>

mick

I made the original call on this play
 

I was a month early on this one - and at least two pages shy on my intellectual responses estimate. But the nail was struck fairly close to center of the head.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10367