My partner and I were officiating a high school game tonight and, for the first time, ran into this situation.

Inbound underneath the basket after a foul. A1 throws it about 2 feet to A2 who has gotten good seal position on her defender. Realizing she has maneuvered too far under the goal to get a good shot, A2 she sticks the ball out to handoff (not pass which is a key point) to A1 who is coming inbounds after the pass. Pushing off to gain more leverage and speed, A1 is clearly on the baseline when her and A2 gain joint possession of the ball. It was a split second action, but they both have solid possession. Is this a violation because A1 had dual possession with a teammate while she had a foot out of bounds or does A2, by the book, have possession until she releases the ball?

Hope that was a clear description of what happened.

Dual possession is irrelevant. If I understand your description correctly, the throw-in was comleted and then A1 touched the ball while standing out of bounds, which is a violation, regardless of whether A2 is touching/holding the ball or not.

Similarly, you are not allowed to hand the ball inbounds, it must be a pass (because if you hand it off, at some point the ball has been inbounded and a player in bounds has touched the ball starting the clock, and at that same point in time a player out of bounds has touched the ball).

Unless there is something about possession I'm missing?

Let's see if I've got it right:

1. A1 inbounds ball - pass to A2, who is clearly inbounds.

2. While A2 is holding ball, A1 who still has at least one foot touching the OOB line touches the ball.

This is a violation - ball touching player who is OOB causes ball to become OOB, regardless of who else, if anyone, is touching or holding the ball at the time.

Similarly, if A1 had jumped inbounds, but touches the ball before at least foot (OK, body part) touches the court inbounds, then it is still a violation. By rule, A1's location while airborn is where she last touched the floor.

Thanks guys. I thought my call was correct. Got some crap from the coach over it and just wanted to confirm.

Good info, Tim Taylor, BTW. I'll put that in my 'officiating' memory.

Hmmmmmm.......

Almost the same play......

What's the call if A2, after receiving that throw-in in bounds, pivoted and subsequently touched A1 with his hand, arm, body, etc. instead of the ball while A1 was still out of bounds?

No.

Do me a favor, please? Don't answer this yet, until there are a few other responses.

***** Rule ref erased per your request.
Better yet substitute the official for A1 in that play!

Also, I deleted my previous post. We can debate that issue tomorrow.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Feb 15th, 2006 at 04:04 AM]

OK.

NFHS. Rule: 7-1-1:
...A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary.....

Case Book: 7.1.1 Says (among other things):
........People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation.



[Edited by Time2Ref on Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:43 AM]

Now we take this a step further and ask:
Did A2 gain an advantage from this touch (ie maintaining his balance)?

Here we need to divide this into two cases:
1. The person OOB who is contacted is a player.
Per 7-1-1 there is no OOB violation even if an advantage was gained because the touch occurred with a player.

2. The person OOB who is contacted is NOT a player.
By 7.1.1 if there was an advantage gained then the correct call is an OOB violation.

At least that is the way I read it.

What the heck is A1 doing standing out of bounds? Delaying return to the playing court! TWEET! :D

OK.

NFHS. Rule: 7-1-1:
...A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary.....

Case Book: 7.1.1 Says (among other things):
........People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently touching <font color = red>someone</font> who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Now we take this a step further and ask:
Did A2 gain an advantage from this touch (ie maintaining his balance)?

Here we need to divide this into two cases:
1. The person OOB who is contacted is a player.
Per 7-1-1 there is no OOB violation even if an advantage was gained because the touch occurred with a player.

[/B][/QUOTE]Disagree with you on that one. The case play says that people are not objects, and players sureasheck are people. The case play language says touching "someone" OOB to gain an advantage is a violation, and that same case play uses language referring to " someone" as also including a player- i.e. as in 7.1.1SitA(a). Therefore, it's also a violation if you gain an advantage by touching a player who is OOB.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:26 PM]

How would you have ruled prior to that casebook play coming in unannounced a couple of seasons ago?

The language of the rule book was very clear to except a player from the OOB restriction.

There simply is no rule which says that a player who is inbounds is considered out of bounds when he touches another player who is OOB, whether or not he gains an advantage.

All that we have is this politically correct casebook play.


Here is a test play.
A)
A1 and B1 dive for a loose ball near the sideline. B1 ends up on the floor with half of his body inbounds and half OOB. A1 ends up lying on top of the inbounds half of B1 and has the ball. A1 is not touching the floor OOB. B1 is not touching the ball.
B)Same as above except, A1 is lying on top of the OOB half of B1.

1) Legal play if you touched a player. Violation if you touched a coach, cheerleader, photographer,etc.

Legal play in both (A) and (B). In both case,A1 is touching a player who is OOB, but A1 is not OOB himself by rule. The only part of A1's body touching the floor is touching the court in-bounds. You might say that A1 is gaining an advantage in situation (B) and therefore that one should be a violation, but I don't know whether you can definitely say that he did it to gain a deliberate advantage. Any doubt imo, fuggedaboutit.