"Reestablishing" inbounds

[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...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

Not quite, but close. The dribbler could be the first to touch if you rule it an interrupted dribble. IOW, if the dribbler loses control of the ball before going OOB, composes herself, and runs right back in and picks up the dribble again; it's perfectly legal.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not quite, but close. The dribbler could be the first to touch if you rule it an interrupted dribble. IOW, if the dribbler loses control of the ball before going OOB, composes herself, and runs right back in and picks up the dribble again; it's perfectly legal.

It's also legal if she doesn't compose herself.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's also legal if she doesn't compose herself.

What if she decomposes herself?

btw, What is Beethoven doing now?

A: Decomposing.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What if she decomposes herself?

btw, What is Beethoven doing now?

A: Decomposing.

So, did you read that on a fortune cookie, too?

[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????