Rule Help
 

Got into a discussion yesterday with an official who swore that a player who throws an inbound pass must establish two feet on the floor before they can touch the ball inbounds...I am pretty certain this is not correct, that if the inbounder hopped inbounds on one foot and received a return pass, this would be legal, however, I can't find a case or a rule to support. My thinking is that since the wording in 7.1 and 4.35.3 omit any reference to "two feet", this is my support, however, anyone else have any further thoughts/case support? I have always subscribed to the theory that "if they ain't out then they're in"...and to be "out" we must have something per 7.1...my thinking is this is similar to A1 who comes from BC to FC and catches a pass from A2 who is in the FC while A1 has one foot in the FC and one foot in the air - legal, therefore I don't see why this wouldn't apply to the inbounds play as well...

4-35 is the correct rule reference. If you're not touching out of bounds (4-35-2) and you're not airborne after last touching out of bounds (4-35-3), then you're inbounds.

Good thinking and *what Scrappy said*.

Your BC/FC comparison isn't quite good, since if you have one foot IB and one OB, you're not IN you're OUT.

The way to remember when the player is IB is "something touching in, nothing touching out." That's not a rules reference, just a handy phrase.

The other night, at a tournament, I was having a discussion with a young assistant coach who has been a player in Europe recently, about rule differences, here from there. He asked if after a made basket the player making the throw-in had to have both feet established out of bounds. Another guy, an older guy, who up until recently was a coach, and, I believe, has also done some officiating, spoke up and said, "Yes." I quickly and quietly said that you did not, that the only thing that I could think of off hand that required both feet to be anywhere was establishing legal guarding position. The older guy responded with the famous comment that we have all heard before: "They may have changed it, but it used to be that way." Is this true?

Right but if you have A1 with one foot touching BC and one touching FC when they catch the ball in my example you have a violation...that was why I made the comparison, you would have a violation in both cases...

Thanks all!

One Foot - Two foot Myth
 

If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he or she can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Except for a thrower on a throwin....its just he oppsite. They are (or effectively are) inbounds when they touch inbounds even if they're still touching OOB.

Two feet inbounds is NFL, not NFHS.

4.35.2 SITUATION: Thrower A1 inbounds the ball to A2. A2 immediately throws the ball back to A1. When A1 touches the pass, he/she has: (a) both feet touching inbounds; (b) one foot touching inbounds and one out of bounds; or (c) one foot touching inbounds and the other not touching the floor. RULING: The ball remains live in (a) and (c), but A1 has caused the ball to be out of bounds in (b). (4-4-4)

Thanks IR, exactly what I was looking for!

When I started officiating, humans dragged both feet and both hands on the ground, so it was impossible to have only one foot OOB. :D

[QUOTE=BillyMac]If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he or she can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason[/QUOTE]
Actually, as of this year, it is no longer a violation, but now a technical

No, it is a violation to leave the court for an unauthorized reason. It is a technical foul to delay returning to the court after being out of bounds for an authorized reason.

This is not a change.

???:confused: