Over and Back by stepping out of "bounds"

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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

MTD, Sr.

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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!

[bob jenkins]

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.

[Johnny Ringo]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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."

This is the correct call here: a double dribble?

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

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

This is the correct call here: a double dribble?

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

Yes it is correct...dribble was started, stopped (via the catching), then dribbled again.

In the OP, there never was a stopped dribble/catching of the ball...it was interrupted by her motion of going back into the BC but never did the dribble come to an end.

[BktBallRef]

Johnny Ringo, still waiting on that rule reference that says an interrupted dribble is an unintentional act.

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Johnny Ringo, still waiting on that rule reference that says an interrupted dribble is an unintentional act.

Methinks you are going to be waiting longer than a Duke student outside Cameron Indoor before a UNC game!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Johnny Ringo, still waiting on that rule reference that says an interrupted dribble is an unintentional act.

While I don't think you'll get a direct reference, it is at least implied in the interruped dribble rule itself.....the ball doesn't get a way from the dribbler on purpose (unless it comes alive!!!) An interrupted dribble is not when a player choses not to dribble the ball, it's when they can't dribble the ball.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

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.