The ball doesn't have to go into the BC to have a BC violation. If the ball has FC status and the player in player control of the ball steps into the BC, it's a violation.

It makes no difference whether an interrupted dribble is intentional or accidental. It's simply a loss of player control.

the case play you are asking for is the one where the dribbler makes a move around a defender and dribbles the ball around ol cement feet while the ball handler goes around the other side which is out of bounds and picks up his dribbler while ol cement feet is still wondering what the heck just happened. this is an oob violation. same for this backcourt play -- its a violation.

Most of the replies keep talking about an interrupted dribble ... when I first read the OP I first though of this being a pass and ended up being a pass to herself ... right?

That would make it a violation, forget the over and back.

The way the OP read was it was an intentional act ... an interrupted dribble is not done on purpose.

Refresher Exam Question 57
 

2007 IAABO Refresher Exam, Question 57: While dribbling in the frontcourt, near the division line, A1 steps on the division line. Official rules this a backcourt violation even though he/she is not touching the ball. Is the official correct? Yes (Rule9-9-1)

Could the time lapsed between dribbles have anything to do with this OP scenario?

This is a really good debate we have going...

how is this a good debate? we are arguing whether its a violation because the ball is *not* touching the offensive player.....

Look how many people we have stirred up on this one! Why does it have to be arguing....I gave that up for 2008...this is a debate! :p

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have a violation if it's not a continious dribble....

Can anyone YOUTUBE this play so we can see the damn thing! :rolleyes:

Please show me in the rule book where it says an interrupted dribble in an unintentional act.

BTW, for the newbies, you would be wise to ignore most anything deecee writes.

My advice is this play is not a violation BECAUSE if you cannot explain it do NOT call it.

MTD, Sr.

Thank you Mark....We are all scratching our heads and I think this is the most logical thing said of any of us!

Therefore, she is momentarily not in control of the ball. The situation in the OP is definitely an interrupted dribble and thus not a violation. As the rule says, "There is no player control" at the time. Contact with the ball doesn't matter. A dribbler most definitely can be in control when the hand is not in physical contact with the ball, but that is just during the normal bounce.

In summary, if a dribbler steps on the division line (after being fully in the fc) or a boundary line this is a violation even if the dribbler is not in physical contact with the ball at the time. However, a player may touch the division line or a boundary line during an interrupted dribble without violating. The call hinges on the concept of player control.

Casebook play for reference:

7.1.1 SITUATION D: A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court. A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning inbounds; (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball; or (c) picks up the ball after returning to the court and then begins a dribble. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). Illegal in (c) as the controlled toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes the start of a dribble, dribbling a second time after picking up the ball is an illegal dribble violation. (4-15-5; 4-15-6d; 4-35; 9-5)

Nope. That's a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. It's not an OOB violation. Not even close to the same.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/roflmao.gif

1) I'm NOT sure the ruling depends on whether this is an interrupted dribble. Without the note in 9-3-1, it wouldn't be an OOB situation -- and there's no similar note in 9-9.

If you don't buy that, then:

2) I seem to recall a case play (or interp) to the effect that "A1 chases a loose ball (yeah -- I know that's not a term) near the sideline. A1 grabs the ball and tosses it back on the court. A1's momentum carries him/her OOB. A1 returns inbounds and grabs the ball, then begins a dribble. Ruling: Double Dribble (yeah ...). A1's first toss to the court was the start of a dribble."

So, if the toss was intentional and the start of a dribble, why wasn't it an OOB violation on A1 (under 9-3-1 NOTE)? Because it was an interrupted dribble. So, an interrupted dribble can be "intentional".

(Edit to add: Found the case play. See 7.1.1.D)

(Edit to add: Damn. NevadaRef found it before I could.) ;)

If you don't buy that, then:

3) See MTD's comment.

I Can Explain That In One Rule
 

I can explain it, if it's a normal, "controlled" dribble:
NFHS Rule 3-1-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.

I can explain it if it's an interrupted dribble:
NFHS Rule 4-15-6-d: During an interrupted dribble out of bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the iinterrupted dribble.

This is the correct call here: a double dribble?

Wouldn't this be the same concept has the OP?