whose ball?

[oc]

During a loose ball A1 puts a hand on the ball. B1 also trying to get the ball pushes A1's hand (while A1's hand is contacting the ball). Ball goes oob. Whose ball and why?

[blindzebra]

Hand is considered part of the ball, and B hit the ball last.

[Mark Padgett]

You give it to whichever team Billy Packer says should not get it. That way you know you're right.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by bballrob

I figured this was the answer he was looking for, but i don't buy it in this situation.

Why not? If B does not hit A's hand does the ball go OOB?

It is either a foul on B, because the contact did disadvantage A, or you expand 10-6-1 to cover this situation and penalize the player that DID cause the ball to go OOB.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Why not? If B does not hit A's hand does the ball go OOB?

It is either a foul on B, because the contact did disadvantage A, or you expand 10-6-1 to cover this situation and penalize the player that DID cause the ball to go OOB.

There is no foul.

A is the last to touch the ball.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

There is no foul.

A is the last to touch the ball.

I agree on it not being a foul, I disagree that A touched it last. If hitting the hand that is on the ball is not a foul,10-6-1, then logically striking the hand and knocking the ball out has to be considered hitting the ball.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by bballrob

10-6-1 only applies to fouls. No expansion allowed. The rule is not give the ball to the team that didn't CAUSE it to go OOB, the rule is, give it to the team that wasn't the last to touch it. A's ball.

10-6 applies to CONTACT, so I'm not really expanding anything. If hitting the hand that is on the ball is not a foul, logically it's the same as contacting the ball.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by blindzebra
I agree on it not being a foul, I disagree that A touched it last. If hitting the hand that is on the ball is not a foul,10-6-1, then logically striking the hand and knocking the ball out has to be considered hitting the ball.

BZ, this doesn't follow at all. Not being a foul is not equivalent to touching the ball.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

BZ, this doesn't follow at all. Not being a foul is not equivalent to touching the ball.

I read 10-6-1 as the hand is part of the ball, how do you read it? How do you explain it when asked by a coach or player when a foul is not called on a hand hit?

There is no way I can logically accept giving the ball to the player who's contact caused the ball to go OOB. I seriously doubt the intent of the rule is for B to be rewarded for causing the ball to go out.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I agree on it not being a foul, I disagree that A touched it last. If hitting the hand that is on the ball is not a foul,10-6-1, then logically striking the hand and knocking the ball out has to be considered hitting the ball.

Since when do the rules follow logic?

Also, the rule does not say the hand is part of the ball. That's a poor way of putting it, that can get us in trouble.

Absent a rule, interp, or ruling that says B caused the ball to go OOB, the ball is off A. B's ball.

But my guess is that B1 did not hit the hand without also touching the ball.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by bballrob

So the ball is going out of bounds. A1 saves it by throwing it off of B1s leg after which it goes OOB. A1 CAUSED the ball to go out of bounds off of B1. You mean to tell me that you're going to give the ball to B?

Big difference between throwing the ball off another player and hitting through the hand to propel the ball from A1's hand.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by bballrob
It was your choice of words, not mine.

Yes, and when I talk about fruit, specifically an apple, you supplied an orange.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

BZ, this doesn't follow at all. Not being a foul is not equivalent to touching the ball.

BZ,

Your logic is neither mine nor in the rule book.

10-6-1 just says that if B1 contacts A1's hand while it is in contact with the ball it is NOT a foul but only if it was incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

10-6-1: He/she shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball AND is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

It does not say hand is part of the ball.
It does not say that if B1 contacts A1's hand while it is in contact with the ball, that B1 is considered to have contacted the ball.
It does not say that you can NEVER have a foul if the contact is only on the opponent's hand while in contact with the ball. The contact is ignored ONLY if INCIDENTAAL.

Incidental only means the official deemed the contact to be of so little importance that it had no effect or did not hinder an opponent from performing normal actions.

If you judge that B1 contact put A1 at a disadvantage because the contact prohibited A1 from properly gaining possession of the ball then call the foul. You have rule support to do so.

If you judge B1's contact to be incidental and ball goes OB the give the ball to B because B DID NOT touch the ball, A did. You have rule support to do so.

If you try to say that even though B did not touch the ball pe se but because he touched A's hand while it was on the ball then B is deemed to have touched the ball then this is faulty logic. You do not have rule support for this.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 24th, 2005 at 11:51 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

BZ,

Your logic is neither mine nor in the rule book.

10-6-1 just says that if B1 contacts A1's hand while it is in contact with the ball it is NOT a foul but only if it was incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

10-6-1: He/she shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball AND is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

It does not say hand is part of the ball.
It does not say that if B1 contacts A1's hand while it is in contact with the ball, that B1 is considered to have contacted the ball.
It does not say that you can NEVER have a foul if the contact is only on the opponent's hand while in contact with the ball. The contact is ignored ONLY if INCIDENTAAL.

Incidental only means the official deemed the contact to be of so little importance that it had no effect or did not hinder an opponent from performing normal actions.

If you judge that B1 contact put A1 at a disadvantage because the contact prohibited A1 from properly gaining possession of the ball then call the foul. You have rule support to do so.

If you judge B1's contact to be incidental and ball goes OB the give the ball to B because B DID NOT touch the ball, A did. You have rule support to do so.

If you try to say that even though B did not touch the ball pe se but because he touched A's hand while it was on the ball then B is deemed to have touched the ball then this is faulty logic. You do not have rule support for this.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 24th, 2005 at 11:51 PM]

Actually you don't have rule support for the foul unless you deem the contact on A's hand as intentional, Daryl you just quoted the rule that says it's NOT a foul.

B's contact on A's hand was incidental to playing the ball, I think 10-6-1 supports no foul AND giving the ball to A.

[Daryl H. Long]

BZ

You obviously did not read my post and don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. I agree with you on some things and disagree on others so read this posst and my previous post carefully before replying.

I quoted the rule exactly. The reason I brought it up is if you go back and read some of the comments they seemed to say that if contact was on hand on the ball a foul NEVER can be called, which is simply not true.

The criteria I cited for no foul is two-fold:
1. contact on hand while opponent's hand is on the ball.
AND
2. Incidental.

If both are not met call the foul. It can be personal, intentional, etc. (Give me rule support for ONLY intentional)

If both are met then ignore.

I agree with you that given the facts from the original post that the contact should be ruled incidental therefore by applying 10-6-1 no foul can be called. Incidental is also defined in Rule 4-27 specifically Articles 2 and 3 which apply more closely to this case. But I disagree with you on who will get the ball.

I say B will get the ball and cite Rule 7-2 as my support. The individual player who causes the ball to go out of bounds is the one who last TOUCHED or was TOUCHED by the ball.

In any case if B1's hand never come into contact with the ball then he DID NOT TOUCH IT.

If he did not touch it then he could not have caused the ball to go out of bounds.

I am open to your suggestion to the contrary but only if you can come up with specific wording in the rule book, case book, or other NFHS publication to support your position.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 25th, 2005 at 12:49 AM]