A referee called a violation on one of my players because he batted down a pass, stepped out of bounds (he was not touching the ball when he was out of bounds), got both feet back in and then grabbed the ball. The ref said "you can't be the first one to touch the ball when you come back inbounds from saving it"

I checked the NCAA rules and Rule 7, a.r. 1 seems to exactly describe this situation, and it says it is legal.

Was this ref wrong by NCAA rules? Also, in talking with other coaches, they seemed to agree with the ref that you cannot be the first one to touch the ball after you go out of bounds. Is this a commonly mistaken rule? Also, are there any rules other than NCAA that have that it is not legal to be the first one to touch the ball after battign it down adn goign out of bounds?



thanks

This has been gone over many times in this forum. The play you describe is legal. The player doesn't even need to get "both feet" back in; all he/she needs is one foot touching in bounds so long as the other foot is not touching out of bounds (is in the air, for example).

The confusion comes because there IS a rule about touching the ball after your foot has touched out of bounds, DURING A DRIBBLE. The rule is that during a dribble, the ball is out of bounds if your foot touches out of bounds, even if you weren't touching the ball while your foot was oob. That might make it sound as though you can't be the first to touch after having been oob, but this rule only applies during a dribble. On a play sucha s you describe, this rule is meaningless.

Confusion
 

I think the confusion comes because a player who inbounds the ball CANNOT be the first to touch the ball. Players, fans, and coaches extrapolate that to apply to all situations.

Here's a question: If a player is running toward the sideline to get to a loose ball, dribbles twice, loses his balance (tapping the ball forward so that it bounces 2 or 3 times), steps out of bounds, comes back inbounds, and continues his dribble, has he committed a violation?

Just after I completed the question, I found the answer. Hehe. Rule 4-15-6d states: "Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player invoved in the interrupted dribble."

Re: Confusion
 

your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball.

We had a he!!ishly long discussion recently about the definition of an interrupted dribble. If the player has lost immediate control of the ball, some say it's an interrupted dribble and therefor a legal play. Others say if the dribbler is able to maintain enough control to come back to the ball, it's a continuous dribble. I'm in the first camp; since I hold that if it isn't an obvious violation I'm not going to call it. If it isn't obvious that the dribbler maintained control the entire time, I'm letting it go.

Re: Re: Confusion
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdray

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball.

Actually it does apply. The rule book says nothing about how the ball gets away, only that it does. If any other player were nearby, he could simply pick the ball up. If that does not fit the definition of "gotten away from the dribbler," I don't know what does.

Think about it this way: If A1 and B1 get to the ball at the same time and contact occurs, you would not call a foul on B1, but you must if A1 had "control" unless B1 established guarding position on A1 first.

Re: Re: Confusion
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdray

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball.

Your argument is self-contradictory.

On one hand, you say that it's not an interrupted dribble because it doesn't fit the definition.

On the other hand, you say that you have the OOB when they next touch the ball.

Both can't be true. If it's not an interrupted dribble but is still within the normal dribble, it's a violation the instant the foot touches the line. If you wait to call it when they touch it again, you've implicity declared it an interrupted dribble, which then makes it no violation.

Re: Re: Re: Confusion
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by mdray Quote: Originally posted by Eric Huechteman your sitch here does not fit the definition of an interrupted dribble -- this ball has not "deflected off the dribbler" or "gotten away from the dribbler"; I have an OOB violation when he/she next touches that ball. Your argument is self-contradictory. On one hand, you say that it's not an interrupted dribble because it doesn't fit the definition. On the other hand, you say that you have the OOB when they next touch the ball. Both can't be true. If it's not an interrupted dribble but is still within the normal dribble, it's a violation the instant the foot touches the line. If you wait to call it when they touch it again, you've implicity declared it an interrupted dribble, which then makes it no violation.

you're right! my mistake.... I should have ruled that I've got a violation here as soon as he/she steps out of bounds; this is not an interrupted dribble in my judgement

One a player who isn't in control of the ball, is it 1 or 2 feet that must be inbounds in order for him to legally touch the ball. An official in my area said 2, but here everyone says 1, I'm just wondering which one it is??

Re: Re: Confusion
 

If he requested TO, just before stepping OOB, would you grant the TO?

One, as long as the other foot isn't touching OOB.

Doesn't an interupted dribble occur when the dribbler no longer has control of the ball??

Yes, it does, no matter how it occurred.

BktBallref,
Great point about the timeout. I'm not granting the timeout, and I'm not whistling OOB.

Yes, very good point about the TO. I was trying to make a similar point about A1 and B1 crashing while going after the ball. If it's not an interrupted dribble, then the official MUST call a foul on B1 for contact without establishing LGP, but that clearly cannot be the case, since both are going after the ball. If we decide incidental contact, then it MUST be an interrupted dribble.

Eric,
I see your point, but I don't think LGP is always necessary to draw a pc foul. Not having LGP merely puts the "greater responsibility" on the defender; not 100% of it.

True. The biggest example of this could be the dribbler pushing off with an arm. LGP means nothing as to how you would call this play. The dribbler can't just crash into a defender who has a legal position on the floor either, even though that legal position doesn't include LGP. Casebook play 10.6.1SitE points that out nicely.

One thing to think about...can the player dribble or not?

NFHS Case Book, under Rule 7;
If A1 tips a ball before going OOB, he/she can return inbounds, secure the ball AND dribble.

If A1 controls the ball before going OOB (i.e. grabs it and throws it inbounds before falling OOB), he/she can return inbounds and secure the ball BUT CANNOT dribble.

This situation is confused a lot! Being a new official, I have friends and coaches who ask, "What about..." This has been one of those subjects. Unfortunately, officials often have differing opinions on this, even though the rules book and case book - for NFHS - seem to make it clear.