Hypotheticals:

1) A1 leaps from inbounds, gains control of the ball while in the air (from a pass), then tosses the ball into the court before momentum carries him OOB. He quickly returns to the court, and is the first to touch the ball again.

2) Same situation, but A1 controls the ball with both hands while still running (and contacting the floor), then tosses it softly so it stays on the court while his momentum carries him OOB. He again is the first to touch the ball again inbounds.

I'm confident that situation #1 is legal (it's specifically mentioned on the NFHS web site), but am unclear about #2 since I can't find a citation. Seems to me I read somewhere that a player who had last control of the ball while inbounds, then runs OOB, cannot be the first person to touch the ball when he returns onto the court. Unfortunately, I can't for the life of me find it in the Rules or Case books. I need "confirmation" one way or another for my association meeting on Monday night (1/22), so if anyone remembers seeing the interpretation of these (and similar) scenarios, I'd appreciate getting the specifics. Thanks guys (and gals)!

The rules and case plays that you are looking for are under 7-1 and 7.1. Since there wasn't player control when the player went OOB, it is perfectly legal for him to be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds.

Sorry, Todd,
But a player <b>leaving the court <u>voluntarily without an intent</u> to deceive</b> is not in the Rule Book.
The only confirmations I have that say it is okay is because Bob Jenkins and Tony say it is so.;)
mick

Bob said it, I believe it, I guess that settles it!!

Was there a previous post on this situation that I missed, 'cuz I don't see that Bob or Tony made a reply to my question yet? And these hypotheticals entail NOT voluntarily leaving the court (i.e., momentum carries the player off).

This Page Out of Bounds (OOB) by Richard Ogg

Leaving the court, then returning to be the first to touch was a POE last year. Look in the back of last year's rule book. (I'd provide a specific quote / page number, but I can't seem to find last year's books.)

<i>"POE #5 (1999-2000)
There has been some confusion in recent years concerning whether a player may be the last person to touch the ball before stepping out-of-bounds and then be the first to touch the ball after returning in bounds.
It is legal, except when there is player control. 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. A player who is holding the ball and steps out of bounds has obviously violated."</i>

That's all there is.And it is not enough.
mick

I see no mention of dribble in sit #2. As far as I am concerned, as long as he in legally back inbounds, he can touch it.

Maybe it is one of those "gotta see it" things, but what is the difference between a "fumble" and #2? I don't see one.

<b>
<i>2) Same situation, but A1 <u>controls the ball with both hands</u> while still running (and contacting the floor), then tosses it softly so it stays on the court ....</i></b>

Brian,
I read that as player control. Holding, or dribbling.
mick

I guess I assumed there was no control because the kid is still running (sit says while still running), therefore if control was obtained one would call a travel before any other violations right?


Otherwise there is no control and no vilations.

Tossing the ball is not a fumble. A fumble is the accidental loss of player control.

Quote:

<i>2) Same situation, but A1 <u>controls the ball with both hands</u> while still running (and contacting the floor), then tosses it softly so it stays on the court ....</i></b> Brian, I read that as player control. Holding, or dribbling. mick

Yes, that is player control. But when he tosses the ball, he no longer has player control. Therefore, it's legal to go out unintentionally and come back in and be the first to touch the ball.

I don't think Todd meant to insintuate that the player traveled. He can run while he's holding the ball if he only takes one or two steps, depending on where his feet were when he caught the ball.

Todd, unless a player intentionally leaves the floor to decieve an opponent or gain an advantage, you shouldn't call a T. This seems to be one of the most confusing technical fouls for many officials. But a little common sense would go a long way. There's no T in this sitch.

Tony

On being obstreperous
 

If the player held the ball and passed it in bounds it is one of two things.
1.) It is the start of a dribble.
2.) it is a pass.

1.)Illegal if it is a start of a dribble, specifically, per POE last year, which states in part: <i>It is legal, except when there is player control. 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.</i>

2.)Illegal if it is a pass, other than a Bat,specifically, then it too is noted in the same POE: <i>It is legal, except when there is player control. </i>

mick

Re: On being obstreperous
 

You're looking for stuff that isn't there, mick. These are legal plays.

<i>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</i> means that if the dribbler steps on the line between dribbles, it is still a violation. He doesn't have to touch the ball and step on the line at the same time. But this doesn't apply to an interrupted dribble.

If he tosses the ball and it touches the floor, he has started a dribble unless another player recovers the ball. Then we have a pass. If he goes OOB, comes back in and recovers the ball or comes back in and picks up the dribble again, we simply have an interrutped dribble. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

Unless the player steps on the line while holding the ball or dribbling it, not an interrupted dribble as described above, he has not violated.

Tony

Right, I'm not talking about travelling. I'm talking about gaining player control by securing the ball before he goes out of bounds, then tossing it onto the court so he's not touching it when he IS out of bounds. Sounds like having controlled the ball, per se, before he went OOB is not a problem, but controlling it WHILE he touches OOB (like during a dribble) is the violation. Otherwise, he's OK depending on what he does with the ball. Oh, and I wasn't thinking "T" at all, since I'm talking about MOMENTUM carrying him OOB.

Bob, thanks for the reference to last year's book. THAT'S where I saw it. I'll grab that book out of my other office today and take a look. Thanks for all the responses, guys. I'm covering these situations at our meeting tonight (on the court, rather than in a meeting room), and wanted to be able to back up what I'm telling people.

[Edited by Todd VandenAkker on Jan 22nd, 2001 at 11:09 AM]

Re: Re: On being obstreperous
 

Interrupted dribble does not have any application in this thread.

Re: Re: Re: On being obstreperous
 

Sure it does.

4-15-5
An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

The toss to the floor is considered a dribble, unless another player catches the toss. If A1 doesn't immediately continue the dribble, it is an interrupted dribble. There's no rule that says a player has to bounce the ball so many times before the dribble can be inturrupted.

I am left-handed, you are right-handed.
 

And that is all I have to say. ;)
mick

Re: I am left-handed, you are right-handed.
 

Yeah, but it doesn't matter which hand you start the dribble with. :D

If I am dribbling, lose control and step out of bounds, then step back in bounds and regain control or pick up the ball, I have an interrupted dribble, but it is still an OOB violation per 9-3. If I catch the ball and toss it down to the court while I step out of bounds, I have either passed or I have started a dribble. If a teammate gets the ball, it is a pass. If I step back in and dribble the ball or pick it up, it was an interrupted dribble just as in my original situation and I still have a violation per 9-3.

I'm afraid not coach. Neither of your plays is a violation of 9-3. 9-3 says A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds. At what point did the ball go OOB? You are correct that this is an interrupted dribble. During a normal dribble there is player control. That's why the ball is OOB if you're dribbling and step on the line, even if you don't touch the ball while OOB. But there is no player control during an interrupted dribble. Therefore, there can't be an OOB violation unless the player is touching OOB when he touches the ball or he bats it OOB.

BBR - are you saying that my first situation is not a correct reading of 9-3? Say that I dribble the ball, step on the line, the ball takes another bounce while I get back in bounds, and then I continue my dribble with both feet inbounds. Is this not a violation under 9-3?

That's exactly what I'm saying. This is an interrupted dribble. You don't even have to have both feet back inbounds. If one foot is in and the other foot is in the air when you pick up the dribble, it would be a legal play. However, it would probably be difficult to pull off.

Had you continued the dribble without the interruption, then we have a violation of 9-3.

Or if touching the line and dribbling the ball were so close that the official thought that you may have been in control when you stepped OOB, it would be a violation. It doesn't take long for a ball to leave the hand, hit the floor and return to the hand, so it's realistic that the violation would occur prior to the interrupted dribble. But after the interrupted dribble legally occurs, you can return inbounds and retrieve it.

The rule (case, actually) used to say this. The NFHS revised it a few years ago ('97-'98) when it was noted that there is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

The Note in 9-3 clarifies that during a dribble (not an interrupted dribble) it is a violation to touch the line because there is player control.

I would add that if I thought that allowing the ball to bounce twice was just part of the player's dribble (as sometimes happens), then it would be a violation to step on the line. If what happend is that the ball "got away from the player", then it's an interrupted dribble, and no violation. Determionin dribble or interrupted dribble is the official's judgment.

Determionin? :D

That's right! And running away from a dribble is not an interrupted dribble, by spirit, intent or definition.

I think that's the key--deciding if it really was an interrupted dribble or not. In HawksCoach's situation, stepping OOB and letting the ball bounce a couple times before continuing the dribble would be a violation, in my opinion, because it was not a matter of the ball getting away from the dribbler. Now if, as in my original post, the player's momentum causes him to INVOLUNTARILY leave the floor (not just as a result of "zigging" during a dribble, losing his balance, and touching the line), then I believe that would be an interrupted dribble or just a loose ball--no violation when he comes back in a touches the ball.

[Edited by Todd VandenAkker on Jan 23rd, 2001 at 09:39 AM]

It was Voluntary
 

Mr. VandenAkker,
When a player leaps OOB, that is a<b> voluntary act</b>.
He did not fall or trip.
That is no different from stepping out voluntarily.

Re: It was Voluntary
 

"Mr. VandenAkker"? Mick, you must be getting serious now. Anyway, it's not voluntary when, to save an errant pass, he leaps to get the ball, manages to keep it on the court, then "flies" OOB. It is, as far as I can see, VERY different from stepping out voluntarily. Also, this play is specifically taken off the NFHS web site and described as a legal play (in case you were thinking it was a violation).

Aaaaaaargh!
 

Todd,
I concede!!!!!
I just read Situation 10.
I found that what you say is proper according to interpretaion.
In spite of my disagreement with that ruling, that will be my call from now on.
Thanks. I am smarter than I was.
mick

A good example is to explain this if A1 was chasing a loose ball and batted it onto the court before he went out of bounds then he could legally be the first to touch it when he came back inbounds because he did not control the ball. If he had controlled it before he went out of bounds he cannot be the first to touch it when he came inbounds

Sigh.

As long as he wasn't in control of the ball *while* he was out of bounds, it's a legal play.

Heavy sigh!

Bull Run Ref, your play that you describe as a violation is on the NFHS website. I've pasted it below.

SITUATION 10: A1 jumps from inbounds and gains control of the ball in the air. While in the air, the player tosses/drops the ball inbounds and momentum then carries them out of bounds. A1 then returns to the court and is the first to touch the ball inbounds. RULING: The ball never touched out of bounds and the player returned in-bounds and re-established him/herself before touching the ball. Therefore, the play is legal and play continues. (7-1-1; 7-1-2)

As long as he doesn't have control of it when he steps OOB, the play is legal. The fact that he had player control prior to going OOB has absolutely nothing to do with it.

We're making this so much harder than it is. Unless he is dribbling when he touches the line, or steps on the line while holding or touching the ball, the ball is not OOB.

The ball is not OOB if there is an interrupted dribble and the player goes OOB.

You can't decide that it's not an interrupted dribble because you don't like the way the play looked. Whether the ball accidentally gets away from him or he lets it get away, it's still an interrupted dribble.

Whether he went OOB voluntarily or involuntarily has nothing to do with it. The only issue to consider with regards to this is whether he intentionally went OOB to deceive or gain an advantage.