A1 attempts to inbound the ball on the baseline. While in the process of doing so A1 leans forward and loses his balance. A1 while holding the ball with both hands touches the ball to the floor inbounds in order to regain his balance and to avoid falling forward. A1's feet do not cross the endline. Violation or not?

I say "Violation". A1 is the first to touch the ball inbounds (and out of bounds), before another player.

Tom M.,
No violation.
The player did not carry the ball onto the court. (9-2-5)
The player was out of bounds and the ball location remained out of bounds.(4-4-4)
mick

How about R9-2-6, mick? Didn't the thrower touch the ball <b>in</b> the court before it touched or was touched by another player?

JR,
The ball was in the player's hands not in the court, because the ball was never released. The ball was touching the player who is out of bounds, thus the ball remained out of bounds 4-4-4. :)
mick

Yet, by the same rule quote you could argue that the thrower is touching ib at the same time touching oob. I realize that is a stretch. But, if that is the case, then the play would be no different than stepping over the oob line.

I would call a violation.

Mick, see R9-2-11NOTE- <i>"The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the in-bounds area before the ball is released on a throw-in pass. The opponent in this case may legally touch or grasp the ball"</i>. If the ball remains OOB, how can a defender legally grab the ball? Didn't the player touch an in-bounds area->the ball on the floor in-bounds? Also see R7-1-2(a)-"The ball is out of bounds when it touches a player who is out of bounds". Re:4-4-4--> the ball touched the court in-bounds. It was "in the court".

Using 4-15-4 (Note3) where a dribbler is not dribbling when he touched the ball to the court once or more than once, I find it to be an easy extension to judge the throw-in player and the ball to be out of bounds because the ball was continually held.

No, for me, the ball is in the hands of a player out of bounds until the ball is released or until the player is in bounds.

Still, I have no violation. :)
mick

With respect to R9-2-11NOTE, where the ball penetrates the throw-in boundary, we agree that the defender may grab, touch the ball without penalty if the ball is in the air through the plane. If that ball is not touched, the ball is still out of bounds. Why? ...Because the player with the ball is out of bounds.

With the ball on the floor and the throw-in player not touching inbounds, it is my contention that the ball, not released remains out of bounds.

This interpretation is no different from a player having fallen out of bounds trapping/pinning a ball still on the floor inbounds. That player out of bounds has caused the ball to also be out of bounds.

The secured ball location is directly related to the location of the securing player's location. ;)
mick

This interpretation is no different from a player having fallen out of bounds trapping/pinning a ball still on the floor inbounds. That player out of bounds has caused the ball to also be out of bounds.

[/B][/QUOTE]That's what I've been trying to tell ya. :D

Score:

JR ----- 1

Mick --- 0


PA Announcer: "Last minute of play in regulation!"

That's what I've been trying to tell ya. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Really ???
I thought you were sorta trying to sell the unreleased ball as being inbounds.
Hmmm. :cool:
mick

Really ???
I thought you were sorta trying to sell the unreleased ball as being inbounds.
[/B][/QUOTE]Yup, that too. Isn't it if it's touching the floor in-bounds? :)

Yup, that too. Isn't it if it's touching the floor in-bounds? :) [/B][/QUOTE]

No.
The location of the secured ball doesn't depend on where it started, it depends upon the location of the player with the ball, until the ball is released.

An out of bounds player trapping a ball on the court is causing the ball to be out of bounds, just like the Throw-in player causes the ball to remain out of bounds eventhough he is trapping the ball on the court.

You seem to want it both ways, but there is no rule for that. Tsk, tsk. :)
mick

Apples and Oranges?
 

Hey guys...

What do you call when, on a throw-in, the player OOB starts to make the throw-in and steps onto the court before he releases the ball?

I've got a violation.

Is this not the same as the player touching the court with the ball while standing OOB?

Violation.

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 )

Wise Weasel,
Cool link.
<S>Thanks</S> Merci.
mick

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

Fun indeed. I see nothing in the book that defines "in the court." I see nothing about the ball being released in rule 9-2-6 either. We'll just have to agree to disagree until the NFHS comes up with a case play. Perhaps MTD is searching through the attic right now.?

Z

Re: Tada what?
 

This is a violation.

mick, the rule that you cited about touching the ball to the floor is only an issue in that it is not considered a dribble. That rule doesn't address location.

The basketball has the status of the court that it is touching, with one exception: if the player is in the BC, the ball he is holding is in the BC, no matter where the ball is touching. Otherwise, the ball gains the status of the floor that it is touching.

Player in FC, touches the ball to the floor in the BC or steps into the BC = Violation.

Player inbounds, touches the ball to the floor OOB or steps OOB = Violation.

Thrower, touches the ball to the floor in inbounds or steps inbounds = Violation.

IOW, whether touching the ball to the floor or if the player is touching the floor, it's the same occurrence. It isn't logical for it to be a violation if the player's hand touched the floor inbounds but not if the ball, held by the same hands touches inbounds.

It's no different than the FT situation. The rule says it's a violation if a player along the lane breaks the plane with his foot beofre the balls hits. Does that mean we don't have a violation if the same player falls head first, touches inside the lane with his hands and body but doesn't break the plane with his feet? I've got a violation. :)

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

What are the odds, eh, Z? :)

Re: Re: Tada what?
 

So, we disregard: <LI>4-4-4 [ball location --> player location]<LI>7-1-2 [player out of bounds --> ball out of bounds]<LI>4-35 [Location of Player --> where touching the floor]

We rewrite 9.2.5 Situation [Thrower touching inbounds] and
we add a situation called 9.2.6, both to include out of bounds thrower touching the ball inbounds.

That may just work. :)

mick

Re: Re: Re: Tada what?
 

1) Sooooooo......using 4-4-4, if a player in-bounds with the ball, reaches over and touches the ball to the floor OOB, y'all say "y.U.P., perfectly legal! Play on!"?
2) Of course we don't disregard R7-1-2(a). That's why the ball touching the court in-bounds becomes OOB.
3) Of course we also don't ignore 4-35. That's why we have a subsequent violation under R7-2-2.
4) 9-2-6 is explicit imo too. The thrower-in can't touch the ball in the court. Was the ball in the court when it touched the court in-bounds? Yup! Did the thrower-in touch it at the same time? Yup! Ergo.....

How come we're using the same rules to argue completely different conclusions? :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tada what?
 

No, JR. Asked and answered above. :)

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

The thrower shall not: Touch the ball in the court....
Where's the ball? Inbounds?
Where' the thrower? Out of bounds.
Where's the rule?

Ball location, ball location, balls of fire! :)