Can someone clarify this rule for me? 1) If A1 is dribbling the ball and between dribbles he steps out of bounds, is this a OOB? 2) What if they push it up the court a couple of feet and then step out and back in? (I'm sure you have seen a player unguarded and push the ball up a couple of bounces and then catch up to it)

The Dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundry, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds.

My interpretation is that 1 is an OOB violation and 2 is not.

As long as you interpret (2) as a dribble (not interrupted), then both are violations as soon as the dribble steps OOB.

rookie i agree with you completely. it is a violation in the first part. in the second part it is a violation if he is the first to touch after stepping out. this is how i have been taught to interpret the play

This is FED, right?

Have you considered that you've been taught wrong?

We've provided references for other rulings. Can you provide references for your rulings?

crew
Here is a scenario. A1 is dribbling, ball hits knee and causes A to lose balance and control of ball (interrupted dribble), ball bounces left and A1 steps to the right on/over the boundary line, A1 then returns to the court with both feet in bounds, chases down ball and resumes dribble. Violation or no?

hawkscoach,
very difficult question! but i am going to say violation.
why? an interupted dribble in this scenario is still part of a dribble. which would refer back to the dribble rule(though no player control) identified earlier. this is my reasoning, a player dribbles loses control for a second then regains the ball by 1) catching the ball or 2) continuing the dribble. legal in both cases. in the 1st scenario he cannot dribble again because he has already used his dribble. therefor in your situation (hawks coach) i would deem this a violation. though i am not 100%. this is a good question and i tried to play the situation in my mind and thought violation, even then i called my mentor and asked him verbatim what you asked. he agreed violation after some thought and reasoning.
not all plays are cut and dry, philosophy, reasoning, common sense, and rules come into effect on many plays that are discussed in this forum.

bob,
i do consider that some of my philosophies may be incorrect. i have provided rulings for this situation. you have to put a couple of rules together to get a correct outcome, though there is not a ruling that identifies this play exactly. judgement has to be made, not all situations are black and white.

Crew,it's not a violation.See Case Book 7.1.1B&C.They pretty well spell out why this play is legal.I think you will find that if you spend more time on the casebook rather than the rulebook,these situations will become a lot clearer.

If the ball hits his knee and gets away, I have an interrupted dribble. Player can step OOB, come back in, and continue to dribble if he does not pick up (i.e., "hold") the ball.

If the player simply shifts his weight wrong and is losing his balance, the ball never bounces funny, but he steps OOB and then returns, allows the ball to bounce more than once, and then.... I struggle with that play. I cannot find a provision to justify an interrupted dribble. (I have seen this play, but fortunately I was not officiating the game.)

If the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler, it's an interrupted dribble. The dribble doesn't have to hit a knee or leg to be interrupted. When in doubt, rule no player control.

Crew, this play is black and white.
Certain things require player control.
A player cannot travel without player control.
While the clock is running, a player cannot request TO without player control.
A player cannot cause the ball to go OOB if he doesn't have player control and he doesn't touch the ball when he is OOB.

Hawks coach is not referring to a double dribble violation. He's referring to an OOB violation. Read 7.1.1c below.

7.1.1 SITUATION C: A1 blocks a pass near the sideline and the ball goes into A1's front court. A1's momentum carries him/her out of bounds. He/she immediately returns inbounds, secures control of the ball, dribbles, shoots, and scores. Ruling: Legal. (4-35-1A; 7-1-2; 9-3)

This is no different than an interrupted dribble. There is no player control in either case.

7.1.1 situation c. i agree. if the player would have controlled the ball it would be a violation if he were the first to touch it, i do not know how to make that clear to you.

Sorry, but you can't because it isn't true. ;)

We've discussed these situations dozens of times on this forum during the past couple of years. If the player doesn't have control of the ball when he goes OOB, he can legally touch the ball when he comes back inbounds.

Bob, mick, Mark P., Mark D., Dan, Juulie, Hawks coach, and Jurassic Ref will all tell you the same thing. But call what you think is right and what works for you.

Larry, looking back over this post, I don't see where you've previously posted. Help me out and I'll be glad to discuss it with you. :confused:

This is not a violation...and it would not be a violation even if A1 only had one foot in bounds! (As long as the other foot was not OOB)

RookieDude (BTW...a rookie at posts...not at officiating):)

a1 deflects a pass by b1. a2 catches the ball and throws(controls the ball) it in bounds as his momentum carries out of bounds. (correction)a2 runs back onto the court and is the first to touch the ball. this is a violation. please show me a rule that says it is not a violation.

[Edited by crew on Dec 11th, 2001 at 11:07 AM]

Well, in your case you are saying that A2 went OOB and then A1 touches the ball - that's obviously no violation :D

If A1 goes OOB then comes in and touches the ball, go to NF 7-1-2:
The ball is OOB when it touches:
a. A player who is out of bounds
b. Any other person, the floor, or any object on or outside a boundary.
c. The supports or back of the backboard.
d. The ceiling, overhead equipment, or supports.

In this case, we're going by (a.). So, when is a player OOB?
NF 7-1-1:
A player is OOB when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary. For location of a player in the air, see 4-35.
NF 4-35-3:
The location of an airborne player [in regard to IB/OOB] is the same as at the time such player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

Clearly, A1 is not OOB when he taps the ball in the air (and not a controlled tap, either :)). When he comes back inbounds, he satisfies the IB requirements of 7-1-1. If he is IB, then when he touches the ball, the ball cannot be OOB.

For casebook plays, see 7.1.1B and 7.1.1C.

Are you sure it's a violation-not the start or end of a dribble?

1999-2000 Rules Book, POE

5. In bounds / Out of Bounds?
There has been some confusion in recent years concerning whether a player may be the last to touch the ball befoer stepping out-of-bounds and then be the first person to touch the ball before returning in bounds.

It is legal, except when there is player control. A player who is dribbling (player control) and steps out of bounds during the dribble, even though he/she is not touching the ball at any time, has violated. A player who is holding the ball and steps out of bounds has obviously violated.

(end of that reference)

Also, 1997-1998 Case Book, Revised Interpretation

31. Play: While A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt, the ball hits his or her foot and bounces away. During the interrupted dribble A1: (a) steps on the sideline; or (b) steps on the division line. A1 then recovers and passes the ball. Ruling: No violation has occurred as A1 is not in player control during an interrupted dribble.

(Note that this revised interp made it to the Case Book as 4.15.5, but doesn't appear in subsequent years.)

I hope that clarifies and puts and end to this discussion.

Bob, it should but I bet it doesn't! :)

It might put an end to this discussion, but I'm sure it will come right back up on its two week cycle . . .

so i was right.

I have no idea why I am doing this,but I'm gonna try again.When A2 catches the ball,he establishes both player control and team control.When A2 then throws the ball,A2 LOSES player control but his team(A) RETAINS team control.A2 now goes out of bounds and returns in bounds.HE DOES NOT HAVE PLAYER CONTROL DURING THIS PERIOD,EVEN THOUGH HIS TEAM STILL HAS CONTROL!!!When A2 touches the ball again in bounds,he again establishes PLAYER CONTROL to go along with the A team control.THERE IS NO FREAKING VIOLATION!Every pertinent,applicable rule has been cited for you.Bob Jenkins even went to considerable time and effort to look up old rulings for you.
Please be advised that if you continue to insist that this is a violation:
1)You will be held personally responsible for Bob Jenkins' head exploding.
2)I will leave my personal quest in the wilds of Ohio,hunt you down(I know where you live),neuter you,puke on your shoes,and then point at your pants!

After editing your post to change the second A1 to A2, you were correct. It's best to point out your error rather than changing your post after people have pointed out the error. As for your original comment:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crew
rookie i agree with you completely. it is a violation in the first part. in the second part it is a violation if he is the first to touch after stepping out. this is how i have been taught to interpret the play [/QUOTE

Your comment was posted in response to these to situations:

I can see both sides of this, having thought of another way to portray this situation. Technically speaking, the violation occurred the minute A1 stepped OOB, unless you have decided it is an interrupted dribble, in which case we wll never have a violation. However, all you veteran casebook readers out there, consider this:

If A1 pushes the ball away a couple of bounces and A2 runs along and grabs the ball, we have no violation. That push was a pass and the dribble had ended. If A1 goes back and resumes his dribble or grabs the ball, we have never lost player control, and in the latter case the dribble never stopped until the player grabbed it - dribbler was OOB, therefore violation.

So I can clearly see why you might hold the whistle to see what transpires - you are not mind readers. But if and when A1 touches the ball, the violation still technically occurred when and where A1 stepped out, not when and where A1 touched the ball.

In saying crew was right with his edit (changing to A2 tosses and then retrieves), I am assuming we are saying that A2 started a dribble when throwing the ball onto the court. In fact, A2 cannot pass the ball to himself, so if he had control and did not take a shot, was his catch and toss not by definition the start of a dribble if he then went and retrieved it? I did not see where Bob addressed this. Maybe I am missing something in his case examples.

If it is not the start of a dribble, is it not a traveling call to throw the ball to yourself?

He's not throwing the ball to himself - he is simply tapping the ball in (when he had no control) and happens to be the first to get the ball.

You're killing me! :D

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.

Is that 4.15.4D(a)? If so, how is that a travel (double dribble, perhaps), and where is the rule reference (so we don't have to argue if this case book play is removed).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

2)I will leave my personal quest in the wilds of Ohio,hunt you down(I know where you live),neuter you,puke on your shoes,and then point at your pants!

LMAO. I'm so happy that people aren't offended that I revived the "shoes" comment. I always thought it was hysterically funny, for some warped reason; despite its rather graphic description. I'm reading JR's post and I can't stop giggling. :)

Chuck

It's close.

A1, who is holding the ball, is being guarded by B1. He tosses the ball over B1's head, runs around B1, and a) catches the ball and then begins to dribble, or b) allows the ball to hit the floor and then dribbles.

In a), we have traveling. He didn't fumble the ball. He threw a pass to himself. Had he allowed the ball to hit the floor, instead of catching or touching the ball, it could have legally dribbled as he did in b).

With catching, though, isn't the player holding the ball?

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

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.


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.

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).

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

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.