First to touch on shot?
 

A1 attempts a try on a fast break. The ball hits high on the glass. A1's momentum carrys her OOB and she quickly comes back in bounds and is the first to touch the ball. Both feet were back inbounds when she touched. Legal or not?

Legal.

Mregor

This is not the football and it especially is not the NFL. ;)

Peace

Perfectly legal. There is no rule in basketball about being the first to touch a ball when you come in bounds, at least NFHS. One foot is enough to establish an on-court position. The only way it's a violation is if she jumps from OOB and touches the ball before establishing a position inbounds. It's not like the NFL.

Another example and this happened in a varsity girls game and was discussed after the game with the crew and later I phoned a Div. I official.

A1 recieves the inbound pass from A2 after a made basket by Team B. A1 begins to dribble and trips over her own feet and stumbles out of bounds. The ball remains inbounds. There is no pressure from the defense (all five players are on the other end of the court). A2 is running from backcourt and doe snot see this. There is no one else even close to the play. A1 collects herself returns from OOB to inbounds where she continues the dribble.

Legal?

Same principle as the other example.

This play was allowed originally, but after all officials were in agreement that it should have been called a violation.

Cite me a rule. It's not a violation, it was called correctly. A player has the same position from wherever his/her feet last touched.

Why did ALL think it was a violation? What was the ruling?

Looks to me like she lost control, thus an interrupted dribble. Perfectly legal. The only way you could rule the ball OOB when not touching a player who has OOB status is if you deem the player in continuous control of the dribble. An interrupted dribble does not meet this requirement.

I can't exactly recall the why they said this. Something to do with A1 can't be the first to touch the ball once they went OOB. I thought this was wrong but after five officals said this is a violation and kept quiet until i saw the play tonight with the shot and the player going OOB and then returning inbounds to touch or get the rebound and nobody touching it since A1.

Now, another example.

A1 is dribbling near the sideline where they accidently run into A2 the ball continues to bounce inbounds while A1 goes OOB with both feet. A1 then returns inbounds with one or two feet and continues dribble or picks up the ball. A1 was the only player to touch ball during this sequence. I assume this is a legal play?

Apply the principle stated before, a player has the same position where his/her feet last touched. Legal.

The five officials are wrong. See the case plays under 7.1. All of these are legal plays. There is no rule that forbids a player from being the first to touch the ball after being OOB, as long as there's no player control while OOB.

Yup, again, it's a classic interrupted dribble during which there is no player control. The only way a player can commit an OOB violation without either the ball going OOB or touching the ball while standing OOB is to be in continuous control of a dribble while stepping OOB (even if the player doesn't actually touch the ball and OOB at the same time). I'm going to stop now that I'm starting to get redundant.

Snaq's original post is still the appropriate answer. Still legal. No player control, so it doesn't violate (the pertinent rule) 9-3-Note:

9-3-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.

Refer also to the following:
4-15-5 An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

4-15-6-d During an interrupted dribble: Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble.

This helps and why this board is such an assest. A lot of people who are good officials have gotten this wrong.

There is no rule on last to touch and first to touch in NFHS basketball, correct?

Finally, at long last, yes! Correct! Although it's an all-too-common misconception.

I've seen good officials make this call. It's one of those cases where the protest rule would come in handy over time. :)

But too many officials get it wrong becasue they don't know the rule...so, what good would a protest be? It might even lead to a T when the official hears the protest and refuses to budge.

Johnny, you're right in what you're trying to say, but I think your wording should be re-worked. There is a "last to touch, first to touch" rule in NFHS, but it doesn't have anything to do with the oob situation. Also, none of your plays included the aspect of continuous player control, but that is an issue on some oob calls. Just be careful how you talk to your compatriots about this issue.

Fwiw, case book play 7.1.1SitB is the exact same play.

Just in case anyone references NCAA, This could be a violation. Provided the player goes out of bounds under his/her own volition and is then the first to touch the ball. My rules interpreter says to look for deception as well.

Snaq's referring to another thread where we were discussing the addition of a rule in Missouri that a coach could call a time-out to review the rule book when the ref is in error.

Snaq, you're still forgetting one thing. The most ignorant ref is still on par with the most educated coach when it comes to the rule book. Naturally, that's just MHO!

Sure, but none of that happened in any of the plays mentioned in this thread.

I think that "can't be the first to touch after returning from OOB" might be an NBA rule.

I agree and meant to add that to my original post. Thanks

A2 is running from backcourt and "doe snot".....
Well, it is no wonder why she slipped, that stuff is really slippery!!!:D

Even Ms. Annoying Typo Gal let that one go -- just too easy!

I was at the zoo last week looking at the deer and one of them sneezed. Yeah - I got doe snot all over me. :(

Could have been worse. Could have been buck shot, er, I mean buck snot. :p

Actually, I went past the howler monkey cage and saw quite a few coaches in there.

Rainmaker, can you explain this a little more? How would that change one of this plays?

Deception? Why? :confused:

She's saying there is a last to touch, first to touch aspect in BC violations but not on OOB situations. Don't let it confuse you, as it has nothing to do with your plays.

Please note that there is a rule regarding this in the NCAA. There was much confusion about its meaning when it was first put in about three seasons ago. I have even attended NCAA rules clinics in which it was taught incorrectly. :(

Here is the text of the NCAA rule:
RULE 9, Section 4. Player Out of Bounds

Art. 1.

becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court
has committed a violation.
a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of
bounds as permitted by Rule 7-5.8.a, does not receive the pass along
the endline by a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after his
or her return to the playing court.

A.R. 181.

A.R. 143.

A1 blocks a pass near the end line. The ball falls to the floor inbounds but A1, who is off balance, falls outside the end line. A1 returns, secures control of the ball, and dribbles. RULING: Legal. A1 has not left the playing court voluntarily and was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court. This situation is similar to one in which A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum carries A1 off the playing court. The try is unsuccessful, and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control of the ball.

Therefore, when you are speaking to an NCAA official, know that there is in fact such a rule, but that it must be understood correctly. In short, the NCAA rule is not intended to penalize players for going OOB as part of making a play (saving a ball or following a shot) or when they lose their balance and fall.

What about a situation such as this:

A1, on a fast break, throws an across court, down court pass to A2 who is about mid-court. A2 has to run toward the side line to make the catch otherwise the ball will go OOB. A2 jumps to make the catch. Instead of catching the ball, the ball deflects off of her hands. The ball lands inbounds and starts rolling toward A's basket. A2 returns to the floor with both feet inbounds and then her momentum carries her OOB. Instead of doing an immediate 180 and returning to the court, A2 runs down the sideline for approximately 10 feet, enters the court with both feet and recovers the ball. A2 is the only player from either team anywhere near the ball.

1. Am I correct that since A2 did not immediately return to the court after running OOB it is a violation when she returns onto the court, whether or not she touches the ball?

2. Is there any relevance to the fact that when A2 was running OOB she was the only player around and gained no advantage by being OOB? The fact that she was running along the sideline OOB is sufficient?

3. If #1 is correct, is the POI the location where A2 ran OOB or the location where she returned to the court?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Her momentum going out of bounds may be parallel to or at right angles or at any angle to the OOB line that she went out on. When the motion caused by her momentum stops, she's supposed to return back in-bounds from that spot by the shortest route available. If she doesn't, as in continuing on up the OOB line, then it's a technical foul under NFHS rule 10-3-4 for delaying her return after being <b>legally</b> out of bounds. Judgment call. It's never a violation if a player's momentum carries them OOB after a shot, saving a ball, etc. They're legally OOB in those cases.

Ditto what Jurassic said, and -
1. No, it's technically a foul - a techincal foul.
2. If, in the judgement of the covering official, she delayed in returning, then no, it doesn't matter.
3. Technical foul penalty (2 shots for B and ball at the division line for throw-in), not POI, is enforced here, as Jurassic said.

Also reference Sit. 10.3.3.A.

Got it (thanks to Hawkeyecubp also). I think JR might be testing me; making sure that I F/U by actually looking up the rule. JR, you'll be happy to know that I figured out the rule reference is 10-3-3 not 10-3-4.

So, it's a T if the player does not return to the court via the shortest route available after being legally out of bounds (10-3-3). But it is only a violation for a player to purposely leave the court (I think the common example is a player who gets around a screen by leaving the court and circling around the opponent) (9-3-2).

From a newbie perspective the penalty for the above situations seems like it's flip-flopped. Anybody willing to take the time and enlighten me?:confused:

I'm not that smart. I typed in the wrong reference.:)

If I'm not mistaken, it used to be a T to leave the court but the Fed changed it a couple years ago to a violation to encourage officials to call this more.

In your play, if she takes a direct path to the ball, I've got nothing. I don't expect her to immediately step inbounds and then run parallel down the sideline to reach a loose ball. I don't think the rule is meant to penalize such a play.

I would compare it to a baseball player running the basepath. The basepath is the shortest distance between where is standing and the base, not a direct line between two bases. JMHO

I have never heard that. How are you going to T a player for hustling and then not taking a direct path to the court? We're talking 10 feet here. What's that? 2 running steps? That's over officiating if you ask me.

Mregor

I blow my whistle, raise my arm in a fist, and then give a "T" signal. That's how.

Geez if I had a dime for everytime a parent, fan, or coach screams for OOB on this exact play, I might have some pretty good chump change!

LEGAL PLAY as stated earlier