OK, so mick's making me rethink this now...JR, the rule states that the player may not touch the inbounds area...in this situation, is the player touching inbounds when the touch the ball to the floor?? Now I'm all confused...

So, if you are saying a player throwing the ball in leans forward and touches the ball on the floor inbounds and is still standing out of bounds is still considered out of bounds because that is where he started from and that is where his feet are located.

What about if a player is holding the ball inbounds and leans out of bounds and touches the ball to the floor out of bounds but his feet are still on the floor in bounds. Is he considered in bounds as well? Because that is where he started from and his feet are still on the court inbounds.

1) What is the location of the ball? R4-4-1--"A ball which is in contact ....with the court....is in the backcourt if ..the ball....is touching the backcourt". Obviously, that holds true for the front court too, doesn't it? Ergo, ipso facto, a ball touching the court in-bounds has in-bounds status. <i>N'est-ce-pas?</i>
2) What is the status of the player throwing the ball in? R7-1-1--"A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor....on or outside a boundary".
Now.....
R7-1-2(a) states that "the ball is out of bounds when it touches a player out of bounds"
And.....
R7-2-2 sez- "If the ball is out of bounds because of touching or being touched by a player who is on or outside a boundary line, such player causes it to go out".
Which takes us to.....
R9-3--"A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds".

Tada....

Redhouse,
Nope. Not saying that because of rule 7-2 (b).
We hafta use the rules. ;)
mick

Can't find it
 

I thought there was a thread here not to long ago about this same situation that happened in a college game that the officials did not call. The discussion developed into college officials calling what they are told to call and not calling certain things.

During that thread I thought that it was determined to be a violation in federation play. I looked for the thread but could not find it. Does anyone remember that discussion or know which thread it was because I would be interested in going back and reading that again.

Tada what?
 

1) What is the location of the ball? R4-4-1--"A ball which is in contact ....with the court....is in the backcourt if ..the ball....is touching the backcourt". <font color = red><B>Obviously, that holds true for the front court too, doesn't it?</font></B> Ergo, ipso facto, a ball touching the court in-bounds has in-bounds status. <i>N'est-ce-pas?</i>

Tsk, tsk. ;)
Obvious is less than correct.
If a player standing in the back court touches ball to front court, the ball does not achieve front court location. 4-1 <I>Mais, tu es tres gentile.</I>

Re: Tada what?
 

1)If a player standing in the back court touches ball to front court, the ball does not achieve front court location. 4-1

2) <I>Mais, tu es tres <font color = red>gentile</font>.</I>
[/B][/QUOTE]
1) But the ball still retains in-bounds status in all cases, doesn't it? <i>Mais, non?</i>

2) Don't be bringing religion into the discussion now. That's a no-no!

Oi vey...I have such a headache!!

Re: Re: Tada what?
 

1) But the ball still retains in-bounds status in all cases, doesn't it? <i>Mais, non?</i>

2) Don't be bringing religion into the discussion now. That's a no-no! [/B][/QUOTE]

<I>Is it <U>"tres gentil"</U>? I forget. I've been corrected on that before, haven't I? You did it didn't you? It sounds right when I read it aloud. :)</I>
<HR>

<i>1) But the ball still retains in-bounds status in all cases, doesn't it? <i>Mais, non?</i>

In all of <B>what</B> cases?
All of your examples show the ball going out of bounds, methinks. And, you are using those examples to show a ball is going in bounds if it is held by a player who is standing out of bounds. :)

mick

In all of <B>what</B> cases?
All of your examples show the ball going out of bounds, methinks. And, you are using those examples to show a ball is going in bounds if it is held by a player who is standing out of bounds. :)

[/B][/QUOTE]In all of the examples, I am showing a ball that has achieved in-bound status now being put OOB by being touched by a player that had OOB status when he touched the in-bounds ball.

Heeheeheehee....

Makes sense to me anyway. If I work this right, I figger that I can make Rocky's head explode before I'm done.

Btw, forgot to add, t'is <i>gentil</i> for "gentle" and <i>jauntile</i> for "jaunty". Pronounced about the same <i>en francais</i>.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 10th, 2004 at 05:50 PM]

I think you're overanalyzing this one Mick.

9-2-6

A player shall not touch the ball in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

He is most certainly touching it and it is most certainly "in the court."

Z

That's easy to say but hard to backup with any rule.
 

Z,
The player is not in, or on the court. 7-1-1; 4-35
And the ball is where the player is. 4-4-1,2,4
Every day and every rule <U>except 7-2-b</U>. ;)

It's simple.
Where's the player and there's the ball.

And then there is Redhouse's post: "I thought there was a thread here not to long ago about this same situation that happened in a college game that the officials did not call. The discussion developed into college officials calling what they are told to call and not calling certain things."

To that I say "Yea, the college officials were told to use the rule book." :)

mick

Re: That's easy to say but hard to backup with any rule.
 

To your list of rules I say, "it takes you four rules to explain it and it takes me one." This ain't a Columbo mystery, it's a basketball game. :D

To your comment about college officials using the rule book, I guess you haven't seen them call traveling on an inbounder or traveling on a player who slides on the floor lately. I sure have. :D

Z

Re: Re: That's easy to say but hard to backup with any rule.
 

:)
Z,
Your rule applies to the throw-in player releasing the ball and then touching it first. When the ball is released and strikes the court and is touching no player out of bounds, it is then in the court.

mick
<HR>
Fun ain't it? ;)

Wow! I'm having a blast reading this thread! Pretty interesting conversation!

I remember the senior official in our refs association mentioned us this situation and told us it was NOT a violation. I think both opinions discussed here have good points but Mick's arguments make me go toward the "no call" side.

Oh! and by the way guys, votre français n'est pas si mal!! :D (head to Google's translation tool if you don't understand! :p )