But by rule, is your position legitimate? If you think the contact wasn't incidental, you should call a foul, right?

Jeeze, I thought I clarified that way back......:D

My position is legitimate(in my mind).....but wrong by rule.

You're right, Juulie; imo the only options by rule are a foul on B1 or a B throw-in. Just my own observation, but I think that most of the time though A gets the ball back through the idea conveyed before by somebody--the principle that B1 actually caused the ball to go OOB.

Now, how does everyone else call this play in real life?

A's ball, mainly because it's within the spirt of the rules and frankly just good old common sense.

You are penalizing who actually caused the ball to go OOBs, even if technically they were not the last to actually touch the ball, and you are not penalizing them more harshly with a foul.

Incidental contact is contact that would, by the letter of the rule, be a foul but is deemed no so because it had no effect.

The hand/ball situation, by the letter of the rule, is not incidental contact, it's simply not an infraction of the rules in any way.

The fact that B might gain an advantage in this situation involving contact is not relevant either. The contact involved is clearly specified as legal contact. Therefore, and advantage gained by B is intended by the rules.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jul 17th, 2005 at 03:10 AM]

So.....after wading through all that, I take it that personally you're giving B a throw-in?

A foul on B1 is not a rule option. The rule quite clearly says this is not a foul if the contact was on only the hand and the target of was the target rather than the hand.

If B1 does not contact the ball in the process, the only valid rule option is OOB on A1. By definition, A1 caused the ball to go out. The defintion is that the ball is caused to go OOB by the last person to contact or be contacted by the ball before it goes OOB...it is not caused to go out by the person who provided the impetus for the ball going out.

Consider B1 batting a ball towards the OOB line where, just before it is OOB, it is touched ever so slightly by A1. Are you suggecting that A should get the ball since it would have gone out anyway? (I don't think so).

Now in practice, I don't recall seeing a time when B1 really contacted only the hand. There is practially always contact on both the ball and the hand...with B1 often having the final contact. Given that, the possibility of calling it OOB on B1 and returning the ball to A is a valid possibilty...and will most alway be my call. However, I have seen situations where A1 clearly was in contact with the ball slightly after B1 hits it...A1 trying to maintain control of the ball, even if only briefly.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jul 17th, 2005 at 03:12 AM]

Ok, I didnt read everyones reply.. for the sole reason that I wanted to give my opinion first without " cheating ". I did read a couple of the first ones, which did not contain any rules postings....

#1 - If the hand is part of the ball, which it is if the defender is attempting to make a play on the ball, and the ball goes out of bounds, then you must give the ball to Team A. The hand is part of the ball, and the ball was knocked out of bounds by Team B's player.

Re: one answer to #1 - as we are NOT mind readers, I would believe that the situation would be reversed, and as officials..we would have to assume that the defender WAS making a play on the ball.....if you are going to assume, then my opinion would be not to assume there is a foul commited. I can gladly tell you that I have missed a few obvious calls in my short career, and when my explanation to the irrate coach includes my choice of poor position during the play...along with the fact that I will not guess on a call NO MATTER WHAT....I slowly earn their respect ( only after that particular game, of course )

#2 - No call.. hand part of ball, even though contact may have caused loss of control.

Just my opinion, and not meant to demean anyone or their opinions. New officials, learn to value the opinions of other officials to broaden your mind about possible situations!

Savaahn

Where may I find the rule that states the hand is part of the ball?

Please broaden my mind.

Wow...what a thread.
1) I'm surprised at those of you who are going to give B the ball for a throw-in, ;)

2) No, the hand is not part of the ball...buuuutttt..the rule exception essentially lets us treat it as such WHEN the defender is making a legitimate play on the ball. That rule rewards the defense, great. Now if I make a play on the ball and incidentally hit the hand, which is actually the ball, and the ball goes out of bounds, I have caused the ball to go out of bounds, period. A's ball for the ensuing throw-in.

The rule never says the hand is part of the ball or anything like it. It says it's not a foul to hit the hand when it is in contact with the ball. That rule is ONLY relevant to the determination of a foul. It has absolutely no part in determining who what the last to touch the ball before it went OOB.

A-Men!!!!

Just because it does not use those exact words, what the heck else does contact on the hand, while on the ball mean other than the hand is considered part of the ball while playing the ball?

A coach asks, "Didn't my player get hit?"

What are you going to answer with?

"Contact that is incidental to playing the ball that contacts the hand while it's on the ball, by rule, is not a foul coach."

Or

"The hand's part of the ball coach."

Same thing, #2, like it or not, is what #1 is saying.

Agreed...in the context of a foul...not for OOB.

Camron, so you are saying that A1 is dribbling and B1 slaps and gets hand/ball or all hand and the ball goes out of bounds it is B's ball for the ensuing throw-in?

And I agree that it is not repeated in 7-2, but by logic or common sense...or whatever term you and JR want to use...most officials will give that ball back to A when it goes directly OOB because of the contact.

Whether you want to justify it by carrying over 10-6-1 or by just using the old, B got some ball too, the results are the same.

Sometimes common sense and the spirit and intent within the rules are needed and this play fits that need.