Odd out of bounds plays?
 

I've thought up a couple odd out of bounds plays...

1. After a made basket, A will be inbounding the ball. We all know that if two players are out of bounds on the endline they can pass the ball to one another (until the 5 second count expires). However, can A1 throw a BOUNCE PASS to A2? The bounce pass remains entirely OUT OF BOUNDS. Legal?

2. Can a player who is inbounding the ball dribble it (assuming the dribble is completely out of bounds)?

3. Can you have two players out of bounds on a throw in pass the ball anywhere or just under the basket? In other words, could they line up on the sideline and do this? If the throw in spot is at mid-court, could they pass back (out of bounds) to a teammate standing (out of bounds) at the free throw line extended?

Never seen any of this happen and I can't find it anywhere in the rule book.

1 = Yes
2 = Yes
3 = You have a violation on the offense here - you can't have two players out of bounds other than on the end line following a made basket....all others are designated spot throw ins...

Answers are in red.

What rule says they can't be OOB on the sideline during a non-spot throwin? They just can't touch the ball while OOB.

His question indicates that the throw-in is at mid-court. Therefore, it would be a designated spot throw-in.

Well now, you're correct. I read it too quickly. :D

Leaving the court for an un-authorized reason, don't have the cite with me...I assume you are talking about a teammate of the player inbounding the ball?

Never really thought about that, but a player going OOB anywhere but the end-line during an end-line throw-in could be called for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason...

you would be correct....other than the inbounder obviously...

Only if you'd call it while the ball is live in bounds. IOW, if a player cuts hard to the sideline and over runs the sideline trying to stop, no call.
If, however, he steps out of bounds as some sort of designed play you've probably got a call here. I was thinking about the same thing earlier, trying to figure if it worked here or not.

Well, the inbounder couldn't be OOB on the sideline anyway, unless he/she had to go retrieve the ball there. And all 5 members of Team A could be OOB on the end-line, just not on the sideline.

When someone actually calls this, please come post. That will be a fun day.

Sure, it would have to be the same way. I'm only calling it if the player really leaves the court. Trying to get open, cutting, and stepping on the sideline doesn't meet my definition of "...leave the floor..."

when somebody calls what, a violation for leaving for an unauthorized reason?? i have called this a ton of times, although i don't think i have ever seen two players out of bounds on a sideline throw-in...not sure why they would do this?

what do you mean the inbounder couldn't be OOB on the sideline? where else would they be??:confused:

[QUOTE=Snaqwells]Only if you'd call it while the ball is live in bounds.

in bounds? i thought it only needed to be a live ball situation...if it needed to be in bounds then we would not have a violation during a spot throw in when a teammate is out of bounds...which we do i believe?

Actually, that is a separate rules violation: 9-2-11: No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins.

gotcha, thanks...so in reality we have two rules to accomplish what one rule could have done? trying to think of a situation where there is a live ball not inbounds, teammate of thrower is out of bounds and you don't have a violation? other than following a made basket...??:confused:

You have called leaving the court for an unauthorized reason a ton of times? Really? I don't think I've ever called it.

As to the inbounder on the sideline - we were talking about a violation on a player for being OOB other than on the end-line during a non-designated end-line throw-in.

If a teammate is OOB during a designated-spot throw-in, it's a violation under 9-2-11 which applies directly to designated-spot throw-ins.

My point was only that the violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason should not be different whether the ball is being inbounded or if it's already in play in bounds. The criteria are the same.

IOW, if they do something you wouldn't call during regular play, you shouldn't call it during a throwin since the rules are the same. (except for the throwin provisions).

[QUOTE=jdw3018]You have called leaving the court for an unauthorized reason a ton of times? Really? I don't think I've ever called it.

absolutely, most common situation is where you have a screen near the end line and offensive player runs around it out of bounds....doesn't happen every game by any stretch, but a couple of times each season....

9-2-11 essentially says there is no authorized reason to be out of bounds during a spot throwin unless you're the thrower.
The other rule allows for "authorized reason."

Well, if we're going to apply 9-3-3 A Player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason, we would have to agree that just stepping on the line is a leaving the floor without authorization. I don't agree with that definition.

Agree with you, seems like there are two rules when one would suffice..

I guess I just haven't had that in my games...screens generally aren't that low in Kansas! :D

I disagree. :)
During an end-line throwin, only one of these rules is in effect.
During a spot throwin, there is no authorized reason for a teammate of the thrower to be out of bounds. Restrictions are tighter then, IMO.

Would you apply 9-3-3 if, during a play, A2 is makes a cut near the sideline and his foot touches the sideline? Is that leaving the court for an unauthorized reason?

Right, but all you would need is one rule with an exception....no leaving for an unauthorized reason during a live ball EXCEPT a teammate of a thrower during an end line throw-in following a made basket....we get to the same place...:)

Technically yes, in reality no f'ing way. There has to be some advantage gained to that player going out of bounds before I will call it....or it has to be so blatantly obvious that I have no choice..

That exception doesn't need to be there, because the teammate of the thrower is leaving the court for an authorized reason.

:confused: He is authorized in that case??

I guess I don't agree with your definition.

To me, "leaving the court" and "being OOB" are two different things. To be OOB is to touch the boundary in any way. To "leave the court" is much more a judgement call, IMO. That's why I see a need for both 9-2-11 and 9-3-3. A teammate touching OOB at all during a throw-in is a violation. In other live-ball cases, in my judgement, it's not necessarily a violation.

Sure, a teammate of the thrower can go OOB to receive a pass from the thrower and then inbound the ball. How is that unauthorized?

I think we are saying the exact same thing, getting wires crossed somwhere...I'll just say that I agree, that IS authorized....

Thanks for the answers everyone.

During an endline throw-in following a made basket, a teammate of the thrower would be leaving the court for an authorized reason. A player in-bounding a ball is also out of bounds for an authorized reason. Therefore, no exception would be needed

I suppose the exception would need to be stated for the made-basket/end-line throw-in, for clarity. Not precisely an exception, but a clarification of "authorized reason."

A teammate out of bounds on a spot throw-in doesn't need a separate rule, because that's an unauthorized reason.

Authorized reasons typically include momentum. The rule for throwins simply indicates there is no such thing as an authorized reason during that time.

Right.

If leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is already a violation, then theoretically a separate rule stating no teammate of the thrower may be out of bounds during a spot throw-in would not be required. A teammate of the thrower is not authorized to be out of bounds during that situation, therefore he left the court for an unauthorized reason, therefore violation.

Except that an authorized reason would be momentum, right? But on a throw-in, even going OOB for momentum reasons is a violation.