A1 is dribbling along the sideline and sees that defender B1 is guarding the sideline. A1 then continues the dribble past B1 and then goes out of bounds to avoid the contact with B1. A1 then re-enters the court with both feet in bounds and then continues to dribble ! Legal ?

I am going to assume you have no contact. This would be a violation and give the ball to B. You cannot go out of bounds while making a dribble.

Peace

I say violation. Others will incorrectly :D say interrupted dribble. Heck, we haven't debated this in a good 9 months.

Mregor

I'll add two posts from another site in response to this same question:

I do not believe that this is an OOB situation since when A1 touches the ball again, both feet are back on the court ! As another posted, there is no rule about being the first to touch a ball again after you have gone out of bounds ! Truly (by the book call) a Technical foul should probably be called since there is an advantage gained by going OOB to avoid contact !

Yes, I'll call it that, but there is no 'call', no violation, no need to blow the whistle, when he continues dribbling, he's got player control. If he's wiping off his sneakers while the ball is bouncing at his feet and calls a time-out, are you gonna grant it?

This situation happened in a Varsity Game last year. My partner and I had "no call." My partner still believes that the "no call" was the right call, however, he wanted to shop it around. Anyone else care to chime in?

It is a violation to step OOB with player control and you have PC during a dribble, so THERE IS a rule to support a violation.

The question becomes how you define an interrupted dribble. Some will argue that since the ball is away from A1 when they step OOB, it's an interrupted dribble. Others, myself included, believe an ID is an ACCIDENTAL loss of the dribble and that makes this a continuous dribble with player control, and an OOB violation. The last time this came up, some were even for calling a T for leaving the playing surface.

Keep in mind if you rule interrupted dribble, that EVERY dribble leaves the dribbler's control when it leaves their hand. This is a case of a player dribbling the ball beyond a defender, not losing the ball.

[Edited by blindzebra on Sep 16th, 2004 at 03:09 PM]

NCAA changed this rule for the upcoming season. It is now a violation. The T no longer comes into consideration.
Under NFHS play, what I have is a T. The play describes a player intentionally going OOB to get around a defender. That seems like an easy and obvious call to me.

It's also a new POE this year. The FED is stressing that they want the T called when ANY player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason.

Good luck on that one. I think that you'll see just about as many additional T's called on this play as we saw when the FED made elbow-swinging without contact a POE for a T. The NCAA is on the right track on this one, imho. Make it a violation and let the punishment fit the crime.

Please note that I'm not advocating that you ignore this particular rule. I still don't think that you should let any player get an unfair advantage, and deliberately going OOB on this play certainly is gaining an unfair advantage for that player.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 16th, 2004 at 06:55 AM]

NFHS Rule 9-3 Note: the dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary even though he/she is not touching the ball when he/she is out of bounds.

Why is there a debate on this? This might be the most clearly written rule in the rulebook.

If you're looking to give a T on an OOB dribble, you're trying to take over the game too much.

I always call a force-out. :)

The debate on this is because the rule that you cited isn't relevant. The rule that you cited above was put into effect to cover a dribbler INADVERTANTLY stepping on the OOB line while dribbling, and then coming back completely inbounds and continuing the dribble. That's completely different than the sitch which is the subject of this thread- i.e. a dribbler DELIBERATELY going OOB to to avoid contact on a defender with a LGP. Apples & oranges- and two completely different rules covering two completely different situations. Rule 10-3-3 covers a player going OOB to gain an advantage, and that rule states that it's a T.

The new POE in this year's rule book states <i>" Too often players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example is an offensive player getting around a screen OR A DEFENSIVE PLAYER by running out of bounds. That is not legal and gives a tremendous advantage to the offense. Officials must enforce the rule that is already in place. It is a technical foul."</i>

Can't get written any clearer than that!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 16th, 2004 at 10:27 AM]

What's clear to me is in the POE neither of the examples given relate to this play.

This might be an interesting rules discussion but in practice I'm not ready to judge the intent of A1 when he steps out & then back in to avoid B1. A1's gone OOB during a dribble, B gets the ball at the spot. As Jim said, it's clearly written & an OOB call is the obvious call.

What's clear to me is in the POE neither of the examples given relate to this play.

This might be an interesting rules discussion but in practice I'm not ready to judge the intent of A1 when he steps out & then back in to avoid B1. A1's gone OOB during a dribble, B gets the ball at the spot. As Jim said, it's clearly written & an OOB call is the obvious call. [/B][/QUOTE]Say what? This whole play is nothing but a judgement call. You HAVE to make a judgement of some kind, and you get 3 doors to choose from:

1)If you judge that the dribbler stepped on the line inadvertantly while dribbling, and then immediately continued that dribble, you call a violation as per the note in R9-3.
2) If you judge that the dribbler inadvertantly stepped OOB during an interrupted dribble, then there is no violation if that player then came back inbounds and touched the ball. That's R4-15-6(d).
3) If the player dribbling the ball deliberately went OOB to avoid a defender with LGP, the dribbler has gained an unfair advantage, and is supposed to be given a T as per R10-3-3.

In the sitch that we're talking about, eventnyc said that A1 went OOB to avoid contact with the defender. That's completely different than just stepping on a sideline while dribbling. You're deliberately trying to gain an illegal advantage by using the OOB area to go around the defender.

Btw, that POE says "an offensive player". Doesn't that include ALL offensive players, even the one that might be dribbling?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 16th, 2004 at 11:40 AM]

Say what? This whole play is nothing but a judgement call. You HAVE to make a judgement of some kind, and you get 3 doors to choose from:

1)If you judge that the dribbler stepped on the line inadvertantly while dribbling, and then immediately continued that dribble, you call a violation as per the note in R9-3.
2) If you judge that the dribbler inadvertantly stepped OOB during an interrupted dribble, then there is no violation if that player then came back inbounds and touched the ball. That's R4-15-6(d).
3) If the player dribbling the ball deliberately went OOB to avoid a defender with LGP, the dribbler has gained an unfair advantage, and is supposed to be given a T as per R10-3-3.

In the sitch that we're talking about, eventnyc said that A1 went OOB to avoid contact with the defender. That's completely different than just stepping on a sideline while dribbling. You're deliberately trying to gain an illegal advantage by using the OOB area to go around the defender.

Btw, that POE says "an offensive player". Doesn't that include ALL offensive players, even the one that might be dribbling?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 16th, 2004 at 11:40 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]

I think it's pretty clear I'm picking door number 1, Monty.

When I judge A1 stepped to his right to avoid the defender (we see this same move over&over every game) how does that entitle me to clearly judge A1's intent was to step OOB? Afterall, players will go to great lengths to AVOID going OOB with the ball, won't they?

BTW: yeah, it would seem you're right, but other than that what's your point? (Dan Rather & I share more than a first name)

What Dan is saying is that he has a memo written by Dr. Naismith indicating that his position is correct.

Just make sure you get the font right, Dan.

Adam

My point is that I'm still giggling at your Polish hockey joke, you politically incorrect l'il feller, you.

I'm anxiously awaiting a rule reference that says "an ID is an ACCIDENTAL loss of the dribble."

BTW, how are you going to prove that this player intentionally allowed the dribble to get away from him because he KNOWS he can be the first player to it when he comes back in?