After a made shot by team A, B1 takes the ball out of bounds. He almost throws it in, then tries to stop himself because his teammate isn't looking. He's tight-roping the line and about to fall over the line so he drops the ball right in front of him onto the court. I blow the whistle, him and I both laugh about how rediculous he looked, other team gets the ball, play continues. Next time down the court he says, "I never touched the ball again." I immediately knew that it shouldn't have been a violation. We laughed about it again, but I am VERY glad this happened in a meaningless rec league game instead of something more serious.

Sometimes the play just looks wrong but isn't. Any other stories like this?

Similar inbound situation, D has his back to thrower, thrower tosses ball of D and then goes in for layup. Gotta really watch for O thrower to establish himself inbounds before touching the ball. I've had it happen both ways and it usually doesn't look right either way. Seems to always draw cheers and jeers from fans.

We've argued about this before, but I'm sure I'm right. If a dribbler steps out of bounds while moving up the court, even if he never touches the ball while he has oob status, it's a violation. But I would contend that he's not touching the ball while his foot is out of bounds, AND THEN DOESN"T TOUCH THE BALL AGAIN AT ALL, it would not be a violation. I know others dont agree, but when I see this, I"m not blowing the whistle until he touches the ball after being momentarily oob. If he doesn't touch the ball again, it looks like a violation, but it's not.

I agree, if the dribbler is not the first to touch the ball again there is no violation. If an opponent touches it you have an interrupted dribble and position on the floor can be reestablished. A teamate touches it, it's a pass and you can reestablish postion again.

I agree with you and Rick. Camron doesn't. The rules language is kinda iffy, imo. I still think that it can't hurt to hold off with your whistle for a half-second to see if the dribbler touches the ball again. That just might save your butt if the "never really happens" case actually does happen, and the dribbler doesn't touch the ball again for some reason.

I have to disagree, Juulie.

The dribble doesn't end when the ball is pushed down toward the court, otherwise you'd have a double dribble call on nearly every posession. If they're still dribbling (a dribble, BTW, ending only under 5 specific situations) when they step on the line, that's OOB, even if somehow the laws of physics change and the ball doesn't bounce back up to their hand.

I'm on the side of blowing the whistle as soon as the dribbler steps out of bounds and not waiting until the ball rises to his/her hand again. Here's an analogous situation that explains why I believe that.

Suppose that dribbler A1 charges into B1 "in between" dribbles, so the ball is not touching A1's hands. You're not going to wait to see if the ball comes back up and touches A1's hand before whistling a player control foul, right? That's because the dribble hasn't ended. Similarly, in the present scenario, A1 is still dribbling while the ball is not touching his/her hand, so stepping on the sideline is an immediate violation.

It's not an interrupted dribble until the ball gets away. If the ball is not away BEFORE they step OOB it's a violation.

The dribble or player control must end BEFORE they step out.

In your play, if the dribble struck the defender and then A1 stepped out, no violation. If A1 grabbed the dribble and tossed the ball back and then stepped out it's not a violation unless A1 then retrieves their own pass. If A1 loses the ball before they step out, you have an interrupted dribble and no violation.

The opponent touching it does not make it an interrupted dribble, but it does end the dribble.;)

I don't believe that Juulie mentioned an interrupted dribble anywhere in her post. She referred to a player stepping on an OOB line while dribbling, but not actually touching the ball. Now, if that player stopped dribbling before he/she touched the ball again, how can he/she still be considered the dribbler? The note in R9-3 applies to a dribbler only, doesn't it?

We've gone around and around on this one before, and still never reached a consensus. The play is just not definitively covered.

What's not clear?

9-3 NOTE: The dribbler HAS committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even if he/she IS NOT touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

It does not get any clearer than that JR.:D

So a player pushes the ball toward the ground, steps on the OOB line, and then moves her hand away so the ball doesn't come back up into her hand. Do you not consider this OOB?

I say it has to be OOB - a player can't violate and then do something to change the situation to a legal play.

What's not clear?

9-3 NOTE: The <font color = red>dribbler</font> HAS committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even if he/she IS NOT touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

It does not get any clearer than that JR.
[/B][/QUOTE]I agree that it certainly is clear. It definitely says the <b>"dribbler"</b>. Again, though, what if the player immediately stopped as soon as soon as he/she stepped on the line- iow, just let the ol' ball keep abouncing in front of him/her? Is he/she still considered a "dribbler" then, even though he/she can't possibly have player control? Doesn't a dribbler cease being a dribbler as soon as player control is lost? If so, isn't he/she now just considered as a simple ol' player without the ball that just happened to step on an OOB line? And no, that's not necessarily an interrupted dribble either. It could be considered simply a loose ball if the original dribbler never bothered to go after it.

We need JeanPaul Sartre to give us the definitive answer on this one- "When is a dribbler not a dribbler?". :D

1) So a player pushes the ball toward the ground, steps on the OOB line, and then moves her hand away so the ball doesn't come back up into her hand. Do you not consider this OOB?

2)I say it has to be OOB - a player can't violate and then do something to change the situation to a legal play. [/B][/QUOTE]1) Nope. I agree with Juulie.

2)Yabut, has the player violated if the player is no longer the dribbler? The question is when does a dribbler cease to be a dribbler. It's obvious from the wording of R9-3NOTE that this violation only pertains to a dribbler.

I agree that it certainly is clear. It definitely says the <b>"dribbler"</b>. Again, though, what if the player immediately stopped as soon as soon as he/she stepped on the line- iow, just let the ol' ball keep abouncing in front of him/her? Is he/she still considered a "dribbler" then, even though he/she can't possibly have player control? Doesn't a dribbler cease being a dribbler as soon as player control is lost? If so, isn't he/she now just considered as a simple ol' player without the ball that just happened to step on an OOB line? And no, that's not necessarily an interrupted dribble either. It could be considered simply a loose ball if the original dribbler never bothered to go after it.

We need JeanPaul Sartre to give us the definitive answer on this one- "When is a dribbler not a dribbler?". :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Like I said before the ball needed to be away before they step out.

If the play goes like this I think it's clear, ball in hand...ball bounces off the floor...foot goes out, violation. Now if it is hand...floor...floor...foot, no violation.