I am looking for either a better explanation
or a validation of what I use.
When a player who saves a loose ball is carried off the court because of his momemtum and wants to come back in
to play the ball....
I hear players and coaches complaining that he can't come
back in and be first to touch the ball.
I know he can and I explain his legal return this way:
"He must have SOMETHING IN & NOTHING OUT!"
and of course he must return at approximately the same
spot he left.
Anyone respond to this differently (or better)? Thanks.

It's as simple as there is no palyer control during this play. As long as he doesn't touch the ball while he's OOB, and the ball doesn't go OOB, the play is legal.

a player may tap (no player control) the ball step out come back in and be the first to touch the ball. if he (in your judgement) passes (player control) steps out and comes back in he cannot be the first person to touch the ball.
i hope this helps!

Rule reference please.

nc2a rule book page br 94. rule 7 art 1. case book play: a.r. 1. a1 blocks a pass near the end line. the ball falls to the floor inbounds but a1 who is off balance, falls out side the endline. 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.

rule referenced.

I totally understand the rule.
What I'm trying to find out is:
Does anyone have a better explanation
to give a player or coach?
I say, "it's OK if he has something in and nothing out"
with respect to his being back on the court.

No. Reference the rule that backs up the statement below.

Originally posted by crew
if he (in your judgement) passes (player control) steps out and comes back in he cannot be the first person to touch the ball.

------------------------------------------------------------

bossref, there's no cute answer to give. Just tell him that there was no player control, he didn't touch the ball while he was OOB and the ball didn't touch OOB. Legal play.

Finally an answer that satisfies my curiousity.
Thanks.
BTW I was kinda looking for a quick response
type that you called "cutesy".
I'm always in search of quick, 2-3 word responses
that I can pass on to the guys who work with
(and for) me.
We work tons and tons of rec ball and need answers quickly while the clock is running.
In my former days of organized HS and college ball
I would answer just (or similarly) as you suggested.
thanks again.

bktballref- this is a tough reference to find and is very vague. the best i found is in the 2000/2001 hs simplified and illustrated manual, page 50, 7-1-1;4-15-5. the only other thing i can do is use deduction from the other play. it states leaving the court voluntarily and having control. which leads to if he has control and leaves the court voluntarily/involunyarily it is a violation to be the first to touch the ball. i will reply later with better and correct info. could you ref. that a legal play? i looked (not very hard) and could not.

Try saying,"it's OK,he didn't mean it".That'll make 'em think.

Better explain the quote,"which leads to if he has control and leaves the court voluntarily/involuntarily it is a violation to be the first to touch the ball"too.If it is involuntary,it's a violation?

I use, "That's the NFL rule. In HS / NCAA basketball, it's legal."

If a coach claims "He can't do X"(fill in the blank), with X not being proscribed by the NF rules, I would have the same answer every time. "No rule agaist that coach," or "that's not what the rules say, coach." It's hard to explain a rule that doesn't exist during the flow of the game. Later, if they want the rule explained, you can do it.

That's why I asked for one, because there's not one that supports that position. :)

Quote:

the best i found is in the 2000/2001 hs simplified and illustrated manual, page 50, 7-1-1;4-15-5. the only other thing i can do is use deduction from the other play. it states leaving the court voluntarily and having control. which leads to if he has control and leaves the court voluntarily/involunyarily it is a violation to be the first to touch the ball. i will reply later with better and correct info. could you ref. that a legal play? i looked (not very hard) and could not.

Unless he touches the ball while OOB, or he's dribbling when he touches the ball, I don't have player control and I don't have a violation.

bktballref-here is abetter description. a player is dribbling, while not touching the ball he steps on the oob. steps back in and resumes dribbling. violation, right? when saving from oob. and the player controls the ball(drops, tosses, throws) it is the start of a dribble. therefor he cannot be the first to touch the ball. you have to put a couple of rules together to get the out come.
remeber a tap is not the start of a dribble. does this make more sense?

Guys
This subject has to do with saving a loose ball.
It was meant for the player who tries to grab
(secure) the ball after a rebound or an errant pass.
It was not meant for discussion of a player
who lost his dribble (control).
I hope this defines the subject more clearly.
And BTW you can start a dribble with a tap.

IF the player is dribbling, it's a violation as soon as s/he touches oob -- stepping back in and continuing to dribble has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

when saving from oob. and the player controls the ball(drops, tosses, throws) it is the start of a dribble. therefor he cannot be the first to touch the ball. you have to put a couple of rules together to get the out come.

IF you want to judge the player's actions to be the start of a dribble, then you have to call the violation as soon as the player touches OOB. Personally, I wouldn't call it the start of a dribble except in some pretty specific cases.

if a player is dribbling, and while not touching the ball it is not a violation untill he touches the ball again. it is not automatically a violation as soon as he touches the boundary line.

boss ref,
securing the ball and then dropping throwing or whatnot is the start of a dribble. i understand what you are saying. this is a different varition of the rule, but with the same facts

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like your saying the following:
IF that's what you're saying, crew, then you're wrong. A player dribbling the ball has player control even when he's not touching the ball during the dribble. Therefore, as soon as he steps on the OOB line, you have a player in control of the ball while OOB. Violation.

This is specifically stated in 9-3 NOTE. Gotta do a little more studying, there, crew.

Chuck

chuck,
what if the player is dribbling the ball, while hand is not in contact with the ball steps oob. and lets the ball just keep bouncing? it is not a violation. it is a violation when he touches the ball after stepping oob.

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.

A dribble doesn't end just because it touches the floor several times between hits of the hand.

Crew, it all depends on player control. If the player taps the ball in a non-control manner to save the ball from going out of bounds and comes back in and grabs it this is legal. If the player catches the ball and saves it or saves it with a controlled tap which is similar to starting a dribble and then goes out of bounds and comes back in and grabs it this is illegal. (Read BR 94 A.R. 1 Ruling 1st two sentences)

There's no such thing as a controlled tap. A player has control of the ball when he holds it or dribbles it.

Tony - try this then. A player makes a one handed catch (happens in the NFL almost every Sunday), then throws the ball back onto the court without ever holding the ball with two hands. Call it a controlled tap or a one-handed hold and toss, it's clearly different than batting the ball back to the court. Now the ref must decide whether or not the player had control. But there are times that I would argue players establish clear control with only one hand on the ball.

There's nothing that says he has to hold the ball with two hands to have control. If he catches the ball, he's holding it, no matter how briefly. Most people think a "controlled tap" is when the ball is obviously tapped to a certain area or player. But there's no such animal as a controlled tap. We only confuse the issue when we use such a term. He either caught the ball or he didn't. It's that simple.

coach,
i agree a player can have control with one hand.

tony
I believe that (capital T) Tony also agrees with this concept - his clear objection is to use of imprecise terms to describe this situation. Control is established by catching/holding, and that can be accomplished with one or two hands. A tap is not a catch, and thus the controlled tap is an imprecise term. You either catch and throw (with one or two hands) or you tap. Nothing in between to confuse matters. Makes snse to me.

ok, maybe the word "tap" is not the correct terminology. but the key to this play is control. no control=legal, control=illegal.