Oo-oo-oo-oo, I LOVE This Board!

[rainmaker]

3-person clinic today. Afterward, we're discussing a play I no-called, parent didn't agree; I'm describing situation, my fellow refs disagree with me! I'm very, very sure I remember this discussion here on the board, so I'm sticking to my guns. Tonight, we'll all be on e-mail talking about rule references and so on.

The situation is where a player is chasing a loose ball, tips the ball so it stays in-bounds. The player lands oob, then steps back in bounds and is the first to touch the ball. I hope you-all agree that it's legal.

Corollary question: Above play but player only has one foot in-bounds, when she touches the ball, other foot in the air. Legal?

Tertiary question: If a player is out of bounds, and then steps in with one foot only is the players legally in-bounds? And consequently, can a player who is in-bounding the ball, throw the ball so it bounces off the back of an inbounds player, step in with one foot and retrieve the ball?

I say all of the above are legal. Some very good refs who I respect and look up to all disagree. I hope I'm right, and that you-all will concur. And if anyone can find some of the threads where we discussed this, I'll appreciate the help.

[Jurassic Referee]

You're right on all of them, Juulie. If NO part of you is touching OOB, you are in-bounds. It's that simple. Rules 7-1-1 and 4-35-1,2 are the references. Airborne players are covered under R4-35-3.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I say all of the above are legal. Some very good refs who I respect and look up to all disagree. I hope I'm right, and that you-all will concur. And if anyone can find some of the threads where we discussed this, I'll appreciate the help.

You need to ask them to give you a casebook play to explain why this illegal?

I think your fellow official have either been working football too much or watching it.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Some very good refs who I respect and look up to all disagree.

Sounds like they depend more on their "presence" than rule knowledge.

Z

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Some very good refs who I respect and look up to all disagree.

As I like to say quite frequently, there's a very simple explanation for this - they're wrong.

[SamIAm]

rainmaker, here is a thread.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/13271

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by SamIAm
rainmaker, here is a thread.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/13271

Thanks, Sam, that is the most recent one. And it covers all the bases.

I do think there may be one from about three or four months ago, which I wish I could send along too, but I can't find it right off the bat.

[BktBallRef]

Tell'em your references are 7-1 and 7.1.

Then ask them for theirs'.

They won't have any.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Tell'em your references are 7-1 and 7.1.

Then ask them for theirs'.

They won't have any.

I used 4-35-1 and 4-35-2, 7-1-1, 9-2-2 and 9-2-6. It's hard to prove a negative.

I already got back one e-mail that says, "Hey, you're right. I learned something today." That feels terrific!

[Malcolm Tucker]

Tertiary question: If a player is out of bounds, and then steps in with one foot only is the players legally in-bounds? And consequently, can a player who is in-bounding the ball, throw the ball so it bounces off the back of an inbounds player, step in with one foot and retrieve the ball?

Now I saw this several years ago in the NBL which is the professional league in Australia. Mike Mitchell an american import passed the ball off the back of a defender who set up with his back to Mike and Mike jumped in and caught ball and went in for the dunk. The sad thing is he did it again in the game with the same opponent.

Otherwise you are indeed right as far as FIBA as well

[Mark Dexter]

All seem legal to me - my only question is can you have a tertiary question without having had a secondary question?

[zebra44]

Isn't it nice to find out that you are better than you think you are? Seriously, I hope that the more seasoned officials who disagreed with you are big enough to admit they were wrong. I've run into the same situations, and you get the feeling that even though you are right and present it in a very diplomatic way, feathers are ruffled and you get a rep for being a "know it all".

[davidw]

Juulie,

Let us know the outcome of your follow-up with the other officials. As Zebra44 pointed out, it will be interesting to see if they are big enough to really learn without labeling you unfairly. I've got a lot of faith that if anyone can accomplish it, you can.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by zebra44
Isn't it nice to find out that you are better than you think you are? Seriously, I hope that the more seasoned officials who disagreed with you are big enough to admit they were wrong. I've run into the same situations, and you get the feeling that even though you are right and present it in a very diplomatic way, feathers are ruffled and you get a rep for being a "know it all".

These guys can handle it, or I wouldn't have pushed it in the first place. The one guy started when I did, and he did some college this past season, so he's definitely on the fast track, but hasn't been reading this board like I have! Between the two of us, we've got all the bases covered, now it's just a matter of trading the assets back and forth until we are both terrific in all areas.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
You're right on all of them, Juulie. If NO part of you is touching OOB, you are in-bounds. It's that simple. Rules 7-1-1 and 4-35-1,2 are the references. Airborne players are covered under R4-35-3.

Sort of - you must have last touched inbounds for this statement to be true 100%. I only mention this because of the inbounder scenario Juulie gave - it is not enough that nothing is touching OOB - one foot must come inbounds after you touched OOB.