Out of Bounds rule 9-3

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
With catching, though, isn't the player holding the ball?

Yes, and I understand you're thinking, but the pivot foot was lifted and returned to the floor when the ball was in the air. Either way, this is the other situation that I was referring to.

BTW, my case book reference was from last year's book - A1 tapped the ball over B1's head, and then started dribbling.

I know. That's why I said it was close. If he had touched the ball prior to it touching the floor, it would have been traveling.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

If you judge it to be the start of a dribble, it's an interrupted dribble because the ball has momentarily gotten away from him. There's no player control.

It wouldn't be traveling unless he caught or touched the ball, prior to the ball hitting the floor. This is one of only two ways you can travel without holding the ball. (Did you get that Mark? )

BTW, I've seen theis play several times and I've never seen the ball thrown. Every time I've ever had it, the ball has been tapped inbounds, and the player has returned to get it. This, again, goes back to looking for something to call. There's nothing there.

On the tap and fetch, I agree you have no player control, no violation violation. However. . .

I am not questioning whether or not most times it is a tap, I was reacting to the situation as (re)phrased. A2 catches ball, throws back inbounds, and then goes inbounds and is first to touch. Catch and throw is already there, and I assume the ball will hit the floor in this situation (ball going one way, player going other way) and we have the start of a dribble.

Now you say we have an interrupted dribble - but how was it interrupted? A2 started the dribble with the controlled throw and never lost it in my reasoning. Refer back to the other case, A1 dribbles, pushes ball ahead and it bounces exactly where A1 pushes it, A1 steps out and back in and runs forward to the ball and resumes dribble. This is the case book example where we have no interrupted dribble, so we have a violation.

I see this other scenario exactly the same way. A2 in crew's case throws the ball in a direction and nothing intervenes to interrupt the dribble, then A2 comes back inbounds to resume dribble, it's a violation by case and rule. The ball did not "momentarily get away" from the dribbler, it went exactly where the dribbler intended it to go when he threw it. The key to an interupted dribble (as the case examples show) is not that the ball temporarily is out of reach of the dribbler, but that the ball did something other than what the dribbler wanted. Loss of player control is not loss of proximity, but rather the ball not going where you want it to go! This is in line with the casebook example where the dribbler allows the ball to keep bouncing without touching it until he steps back inbounds - loss of control never occurred. Nothing in the case states or implies that the ball remained within reach, just that the ball continued on its intended path and the dribbler later rejoined it.

You can disagree, but I think there is a very reasonable case that the dribble was started (player control w/catch and throw) and was never interrupted (never momentarily got away).

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
You can disagree, but I think there is a very reasonable case that the dribble was started (player control w/catch and throw) and was never interrupted (never momentarily got away).

Good! I disagree!

I have an interrupted dribble.

An interrupted dribble is when the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. The rule doesn't say that it has to be accidental. You can't convince me that the ball doesn't get away from him. When the ball is 10 to 30 feet away from him, it's away from him. No denying it. I really don't think this is intentional play, which makes it all the more easy for me to no call it.

Call this and I think you're looking for something to call.

IMHO

[Jurassic Referee]

Let's look at another way.This whole thread was about whether it is legal to bat or throw the ball back inbounds before going OOB and returning to be the first to touch the ball in bounds.Now you are getting into a completely different violation i.e.self-pass is a separate violation than the one we've been discussing.Forget about the OOB line completely and move the sitch.Say A1 has the ball in the front court,messes up a pass and the ball is heading over the center line.A2 then jumps from the front court,grabs the ball with both hands and throws it back into the front court behind him.If A2 then lands in the back court,get turned around,runs back into the front court and somehow manages to be the first to touch the ball,are you really going to call him for a self-pass?This is completely similar to the points now being argued.It's a whole different thread,and I wouldn't call a violation in this case,either.

[Hawks Coach]

JR
On your backcourt scenario, no I wouldn't call self-pass, it's an NBA rule. I wouldn't call a travel either, because from your description, the ball had to hit the floor before the player regained it in the front court. So we have the start of a dribble, which is fine. No backcourt violation either because the player is front court when he retrieves the ball. But if he grabs the ball and then proceeds to dribble in the front court, I hope you have a double dribble!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
JR
On your backcourt scenario, no I wouldn't call self-pass, it's an NBA rule. I wouldn't call a travel either, because from your description, the ball had to hit the floor before the player regained it in the front court. So we have the start of a dribble, which is fine. No backcourt violation either because the player is front court when he retrieves the ball. But if he grabs the ball and then proceeds to dribble in the front court, I hope you have a double dribble!

Coach,this play then equates back to the previous play that was on the OOB line.You said in your own words on that one that the player going OOB was going one way and the ball was going the other,before he threw it back.It's almost physically impossible to throw the ball back in,get stopped,turn around,and get back in bounds to touch the ball before it hits the floor.That's why in both cases it's a legal play,whether it's tapped back in or thrown back in from the OOB line or the 10 second line.If he could have immediately dribbled,then there would have been no loss of player control--and therefore no interrupted dribble.You are 100% correct, and it's a great point that you brought up about the double dribble violation.By rule,the dribble was started in both cases by throwing or tipping the ball to the court.The dribble ended when the player grabbed the ball with both hands.He can pass or hold, but he can't dribble again.You understand the concepts involved better than a lot of officials,especially the newer ones.Btw,even though a knowledgeable coach is a dangerous coach,I don't think that you'll ever have to worry about an official puking on your shoes(biiig grin).

[Hawks Coach]

JR
If we can agree that both cases represent the start of a dribble, then I will but point out that there is a difference in the OOB rule compared to the B/C rule. For this not to be a violation in the OOB case, it must not only be a dribble but an interrupted dribble - otherwise the oft cited 9-3-1 comes into play. In the B/C case, that is not a relevant consideration, unless I have missed something.

[Hawks Coach]

As for Tony, he agrees it is the start of the dribble, and now we disagree about the meaning of some words in the interrupted dribble rule. With no clear guidance, neither side is technically wrong, it's just a matter of how you interpret the spirit, meaning and intent of the rule. If you pass on the OOB call, you had an interrupted dribble, so play on!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
JR
If we can agree that both cases represent the start of a dribble, then I will but point out that there is a difference in the OOB rule compared to the B/C rule. For this not to be a violation in the OOB case, it must not only be a dribble but an interrupted dribble - otherwise the oft cited 9-3-1 comes into play. In the B/C case, that is not a relevant consideration, unless I have missed something.

Coach,you're exactly right.That's why I pointed out before that 2 different violations were invoved.I probably could have worded it better,but what you are saying is what I was trying to show.The OOB play just adds another element(9-3-1).You're also right when you say that judgement comes into play on the OOB play as to whether it is an interrupted dribble,or not.It could possibly be called either way, if the ref happens to rule that the player could dribble immediately.Personally,I agree 100% with Tony.It's almost impossible for a player to save a ball going OOB,and then be in a position to dribble immediately.If you read it the other way,you almost have to "mind-read" the player to say he is trying to pass to himself.My judgement isn't that good.If there is any doubt at all in my mind about a call,I usually try to pass on it. it.Saves me second-guessing myself later.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
As for Tony, he agrees it is the start of the dribble, and now we disagree about the meaning of some words in the interrupted dribble rule. With no clear guidance, neither side is technically wrong, it's just a matter of how you interpret the spirit, meaning and intent of the rule. If you pass on the OOB call, you had an interrupted dribble, so play on!

Here's the problem.

If you rule that it's the start of a dribble, there is no interrupted dribble, and there is player control, then you have to call the violation immediately when the dribbler steps OOB, based on 9-3.

But we actually have no way of knowing if it's a dribble or not until the player returns inbounds and retrieves the ball. That's why I will always rule that it momentarily got away from him, thus an interrupted dribble, no player control, and no violation.