Technical or Violation if

[djpriceii]

player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by djpriceii

player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

Violation:

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS


ART. 6 . . . The thrown ball shall not touch the thrower in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by djpriceii

player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

Definitely not a technical to touch the ball first. Need more information to determine if it is a violation.

Please provide the scenario.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Violation:

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS


ART. 6 . . . The thrown ball shall not touch the thrower in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

Probably not applicable. A "player" could be any of the 10 team members legally on the court. A "thrower" is one specific case only. That's why more info is needed.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by djpriceii

player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in. But it sounds to me like your talking about a player who goes out of bounds around a screen and then comes back inbounds to catch a pass for an open jump shot.

In high school, it is a violation as soon as the player goes out of bounds. You don't wait for him to come back in and catch the ball.

(PS -- it used to be a technical foul, but was changed to a violation a couple of seasons ago.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.

Then why is 7.1.1SitD(a) in the case book? That fits what the original poster mighta been referring to.

[just another ref]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then why is 7.1.1SitD(a) in the case book? That fits what the original poster mighta been referring to.

As far as I can tell, it's in there to say that coming back in and being first to touch is irrelevant. (legal)

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.






As far as I can tell, it's in there to say that coming back in and being first to touch is irrelevant. (legal)

If its is a throw in, the thrower can not be the first to touch the ball.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then why is 7.1.1SitD(a) in the case book? That fits what the original poster mighta been referring to.

Grrrrrr. Make me open the casebook. . . Grumble, grumble.

It's there just to dispel the myth about being the "first to touch". Being the first to touch the ball is irrelevant to whether a violation has been committed or not, as I already said. In all three situations of that case play, there was no violation for touching the ball after returning inbounds. So the touching is irrelevant to whether a violation was committed or not. The violation in (c) is for dribbling a second time; not for coming back inbounds and recovering the ball.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.

As far as I can tell, it's in there to say that coming back in and being first to touch is irrelevant. (legal)

Which is exactly the question that the original poster asked (I think).....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Grrrrrr. Make me open the casebook. . . Grumble, grumble.

It's there just to dispel the myth about being the "first to touch". Being the first to touch the ball is irrelevant to whether a violation has been committed or not, as I already said. In all three situations of that case play, there was no violation for touching the ball after returning inbounds. So the touching is irrelevant to whether a violation was committed or not. The violation in (c) is for dribbling a second time; not for coming back inbounds and recovering the ball.

That's cool. But is that what the original poster was referring to, Carnac? That case play sureashell fits what he posted imo(almost word-for-word). If so, that would make the correct answer to the OP be "neither-legal play".

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That's cool. But is that what the original poster was referring to, Carnac?

Well, I didn't think so. Because he asked if it was a violation or T. I can't imagine anyone might think that the penalty for 7.1.1D(a) would be a T. Seemed more reasonable that he was asking about leaving the court to go around a screen.

But in either case, touching the ball first is still irrelevant to the question.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But in either case, touching the ball first is still irrelevant to the question.

Not if the answer is "legal play" and the OP didn't know that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But in either case, touching the ball first is still irrelevant to the question.

Would it be relevant if rule 9-3 Note was the scenario in question?

[tmp44]

Definitely not a technical...9-3-2 is the violation (maybe poster is confused because this was a T for one year and then changed back???)