"Reestablishing" inbounds

[bronco]

How long ago was the rule changed that a player could be first to touch a ball if they came from OOB to inbounds, once they had one foot in? I was talking to a parent recently, and just told them it was changed in the last couple of years, but I wasn't sure exactly. Thanks.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by bronco

How long ago was the rule changed that a player could be first to touch a ball if they came from OOB to inbounds, once they had one foot in? I was talking to a parent recently, and just told them it was changed in the last couple of years, but I wasn't sure exactly. Thanks.

It wasn't changed recently. The rule has been that way as long as I've been officiating.

[bronco]

Thanks, then I wonder where this thought comes from, since it seems like quite a few people think it. Oh, well.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by bronco

Thanks, then I wonder where this thought comes from, since it seems like quite a few people think it. Oh, well.

LOL, we could cover quite a few pages on what "quite a few people" think the rules are.

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by bronco

Thanks, then I wonder where this thought comes from, since it seems like quite a few people think it. Oh, well.

Probably from that other league, the NFL, where you can't be the first to touch the ball when you come back inbounds.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bronco

How long ago was the rule changed that a player could be first to touch a ball if they came from OOB to inbounds, once they had one foot in? I was talking to a parent recently, and just told them it was changed in the last couple of years, but I wasn't sure exactly. Thanks.

I had a partner come to me after I called a foul on B to tell me that A had touched the ball first after being OOB. I gave him a strange look and told him that he was inbounds when he got it. I just now know what he was talking about.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I had a partner come to me after I called a foul on B to tell me that A had touched the ball first after being OOB. I gave him a strange look and told him that he was inbounds when he got it. I just now know what he was talking about.

Good thing he waited until after the game.

[wfd21]

This is a college rule.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by wfd21

This is a college rule.

No it's not.

You have a misunderstanding of what the actual NCAA rule is. It does not penalize a player who was legally OOB and then came back in and was the first to touch the ball.

[jcarter]

Although, now you could probably call that a violation. Why was the player out of bounds in the first place?


Rule 9: Violations and Penalties
Section 3: Out Of Bounds
Article 2


Art. 2... A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.
Note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by jcarter

Although, now you could probably call that a violation. Why was the player out of bounds in the first place?


Rule 9: Violations and Penalties
Section 3: Out Of Bounds
Article 2


Art. 2... A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.
Note: The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

From my experience, you get these comments after a throw-in. The thrower will pass the ball to a team mate and it gets deflected back to the thrower and they are the first to touch it inbounds.

[deecee]

the only exception is the dribbler cannot step out of bounds then come back inbounds and be the first to touch.

and jcarter most of the time (99%) players are out of bounds because their momentum carried them there. the other 1% of the time is the violation for the offense and I cannot imagine a defensive violation ever needed to be called for this. the defense might but it would probably be for him chasing after the offensive player who just commited his violation first...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tjones1

From my experience, you get these comments after a throw-in. The thrower will pass the ball to a team mate and it gets deflected back to the thrower and they are the first to touch it inbounds.

Wasn't the teammate that deflected the ball the first player to touch it in-bounds? And wouldn't it be a legal play anyway if it was deflected and touched the thrower who was now in bounds?

Are you into the ganja again today, Tanner?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jcarter

Although, now you could probably call that a violation. Why was the player out of bounds in the first place?

I think that's why Nevadaref said that the player was legally out of bounds, and then came back and was first to touch. In order for it to be a violation, the player has to go out of bounds for an unauthorized reason, like going around a screen.

[mplagrow]

I never like the wording on that, "for an unauthorized reason." If that's what the rule is, shouldn't we be given a list of "authorized reasons" to go out-of-bounds? Makes it sound like they need a hall pass from the ref or something. "Sir, may I go out of bounds to. . ."

Hey, who authorized 12 to go out of bounds after that loose ball, anyway????