If you guys'd had Juulie's week, you'd be grumpy, too.

And you know this because......?

The rule says deflected off the dribbler, not off the defender. Dribbling off another player is not an interrupted dribble. The dribble getting away also can't be intentional. If it's intentional, it hasn't gotten away, it's still under control. That's what intentional means. The definition implies accidental loss of control. Your examples don't fit the definition, and are not interupted dribbles.

So are you saying it's always a T to go out of bounds? I think you're missing the point of the POE entirely. They are not complaining about the player with the ball going out of bounds, since this is already a violation. They are complaining about players that do not have the ball deliberately going out of bounds.

POE's are about issues. Dribbling OOB is not an issue, it's a violation. Nuff said.

Because Chuck is a great little brother, and can be strongly in touch with his inner female, and gives a good shoulder to cry on. He and his wife have been good friends to me through a really rough patch. Which doesn't look to end any time soon.

That's as female as I'm gonna get this morning, if I don't get back in touch with my inner male right now, I'll fall apart.

Thanks, guys for listening.

Could you please point out to me where I said anything even remotely like "It's always a T to go out of bounds"? Could you also point out in the very first post of this thread where it also says that the offensive player actually HAD the baIl when he went OOB? On my computer, eventnyc stated that "A1 then continued the dribble past B1 <b>AND THEN GOES OUT-OF-BOUNDS TO AVOID THE CONTACT WITH B1</b>". Those are eventnyc's ACTUAL words, not a made-up scenario of mine. Note that I also copied the POE above word-for-word from this year's rulebook. The POE is very, very explicit. The POE, again not me, says that if an OFFENSIVE player goes around a DEFENSIVE player by running OUT-OF-BOUNDS, it is a technical foul. And that is EXACTLY what eventnyc stated in his first post that A1 DID! A1 never dribbled OOB. A1 pushed his dribble past the defender B1, and then ran around the defender OOB to avoid contact, then ran back in-bounds and continued dribbling. A1 could NOT dribble during the time he was running around B1 OOB because it would be physically impossible to. A1 did NOT have possession of the ball- either holding it or dribbling it- when he was OOB. If you can't dribble, then you can't be a dribbler because you DON'T have player control!

The envelope please.....and the winner is...OOB Violation!

If the Academy members were voting this would have been the result but the NFHS doesn't recognize a member vote to establish its rules. The rule says call the T so I am calling the T.

My first impression when this thread was started was that this was a textbook 9-3 violation, turnover and goin' the other way.

But look at the INTENT of the offensive player. He saw the defence set up, tossed the ball ahead, ran out of bounds, and got the ball back on the other side. This is a Technical Foul all the way.

For the rest of you here is a 9-3 violation. Offense is closely guarded and in his/her attempt to beat their defender they end up stepping on the line (as they squeeze past) but aren't touching the ball. This would be a 9-3 violation as the offensive player did not intentionally go out of bounds to avoid contact.

Now comes the fun part......

Would you really call the T in this particular case? Or would you, in practise, maybe call it a violation, using the rationale that the punishment doesn't really fit the crime? Or even possibly ignore it completely? Isn't this call kinda reminiscent of the old "player with the ball throwing an elbow without contact" call, that most officials seemed to ignore because they thought a T was usually way out of line for the actual act? Maybe I'm wrong, but that call seems to be a whole lot more common now that the FED changed the penalty to a violation from a T.

I think that Dan pointed out a coupla lifetimes ago that this type of OOB call has been changed to a violation in this year's edition of the NCAA rules. Usually we tend to mirror this type of rule change a few years later. Anybody else think that maybe we could be going from a POE telling us to call a T to a rule change making it a violation instead?

Me....I'm calling OOB. By the argument of those claiming it should be a T, it should even be so if A1 should only barely step on the line. I The player may or may not realize they're even out. I feel that the T requires some sort of intent or extreme advantage that would not be obtained from a similar path that was inbounds. If that player goes that far OOB, I'm betting the have diverted far enough that it will give the opponent time to actually get the ball.

Okay, does it matter whether or not the defender has his foot on the oob line?

Camron, please note that I never said that it was a T if A1 barely stepped on the line. Please note that I actually stated that that particular scenario was a violation only if A1 was still able to dribble while barely stepping on the line, but by rule it was a no-call if A1 had barely stepped on the line during an interrupted dribble. Please note that I also said that it was up to the official's judgement as to which of those occurred. And lastly, please note that the I stated that the new FED POE says that it's a T if any player left the court for an unauthorized reason, and gave the example of an offensive player getting around a defensive player by running OOB. That's a diffent case completely than "barely" stepping on a line, and is governed by a different rule. Just wanted to make sure that you understand what I have been saying.

Now, are you telling me that it's a violation and not a T if an offensive player runs OOB to get around a defensive player?

In regards to this play, only if there's contact.

By the definitions, player location is either inbounds or out-of-bounds. There is no distintion between a little OOB and a lot OOB.

If the claim is that it must be a T to dodge a defender by stepping several feet OOB, then, by rule, it must also be a T for the player to dodge a defender and step only millimeters OOB. In both cases the ball/player's status made exactly the same transitions....player control (dribbling), perhaps an interrupted dribble, player steps/runs OOB, player returns and resumes the dribble.

In this case, I'm calling the OOB violation the moment A1 steps OOB. I'm not giving him time get far OOB since the violation occurs the instant the first foot contacts OOB.

Yes, I'm in the camp that this is NOT an interrupted dribble. There is no limit on the distance, direction, or number of steps between each contact in during a dribble. If the player has fully controlled the movement of the ball, nothing has been interrupted.