Rules Question!! Please help

[just another ref]

I looked back at an old thread on this same subject and found:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

As soon as A1 touches OOB, it's a violation. He does not have to touch the ball again.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I looked back at an old thread on this same subject and found:

Link to this thread?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Link to this thread?

There's been a thread every year since 2003 on this situation. It's almost like the Annual Baseball Thread.

Same arguments every year....still no definitive answer.

[just another ref]

"The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary......."


We know what a dribbler is. We know what a boundary is. We know what a violation is. Sounds pretty definitive to me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

"The dribbler has committed a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary......."We know what a dribbler is. We know what a boundary is. We know what a violation is. Sounds pretty definitive to me.

I agree, but would love a case book play on this, or a directive from the NFHS. Jurassic Referee has a good point, I disagree with him, but he has a good point, theoretically, if not realistically.

[Adam]

It'll happen less often than a legal shot block after the ball hits the glass.
My opinion (I know, it's just that) is that the player is in control while dribbling. If he realizes, after stepping out of bounds, that the he needs to relinquish control, it's too late. And yes, I think you can tell by his actions whether the dribble became interrupted before or after he stepped OOB.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My opinion (I know, it's just that) is that the player is in control while dribbling. If he realizes, after stepping out of bounds, that the he needs to relinquish control, it's too late. And yes, I think you can tell by his actions whether the dribble became interrupted before or after he stepped OOB.

Agree....except for the "too late" part. There's no rules backing that I know of that will back up your saying that.

If he doesn't touch the ball again after stepping OOB, the dribble was either interrupted or ended. There are no other options afaik, rules-wise. And if you call it an "interrupted dribble", that means it became an interrupted dribble when it was last touched. And if the interrupted dribble started before the player stepped OOB, that means that the player wasn't a "dribbler" when he stepped OOB.....which means that... ergo, ipso facto and tierra del fuego.... R9-3-1NOTE can't apply. The same logic also applies to a dribble that has ended.

Yes, there is player control during a dribble. Rules say so. Yes, there is also no player control during an interrupted dribble. Rules say that also. What is being debated is when an "interrupted dribble" begins. Common sense tells you that an interrupted dribble has to start when it's touched last. And if the player doesn't touch the ball again after stepping OOB, you know when the last touch occurred. If it's touched last before the player stepped OOB, I can't find any rules backing anywhere to apply R9-3 because the player isn't a "dribbler".

Of course in real life, if you make this call, the ball will have bounced back up and been touched again anyway after the dribbler stepped OOB, making all of these arguments moot. It's a bang-bang play, taking less than a second probably. If you ever do run into a ballplayer though that is smart enough to walk away from the ball after stepping OOB(extremely unlikely), I'd hate to penalize that player without proper rules backing. And I still can't find anything in the rule or case book that definitively backs up your statement that the violation must be called immediately when the player steps OOB.

Sooooooo.....to sum up:

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My opinion (I know, it's just that) is that the player is in control while dribbling. If he realizes, after stepping out of bounds, that the he needs to relinquish control, it's too late. And yes, I think you can tell by his actions whether the dribble became interrupted before or after he stepped OOB.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree....except for the "too late" part. There's no rules backing that I know of that will back up your saying that.

If he doesn't touch the ball again after stepping OOB, the dribble was either interrupted or ended. There are no other options afaik, rules-wise. And if you call it an "interrupted dribble", that means it became an interrupted dribble when it was last touched.

If the player himself doesn't realize it until it happens, then whatever he may do to abandon the dribble is indeed too late. A dribble is a dribble on the way to the floor and back again, not just on the touch. The interrupted dribble could start at any time, not just at last touch.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Ergo, ipso facto and tierra del fuego

Jurassic Referee: I didn't take Latin in high school. Of course, way back then, it wasn't a dead language yet. My two friends Julius and Augustus spoke it all the time when they were at home with their parents. Translation please?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Jurassic Referee: I didn't take Latin in high school. Of course, way back then, it wasn't a dead language yet. My two friends Julius and Augustus spoke it all the time when they were at home with their parents. Translation please?

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

No latin though.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Ergo, ipso facto and tierra del fuego

That was a highly amusing line by the ole dinosaur! I got a nice chuckle out of it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Jurassic Referee: I didn't take Latin in high school. Of course, way back then, it wasn't a dead language yet. My two friends Julius and Augustus spoke it all the time when they were at home with their parents. Translation please?

"ergo" is one of those frozen breakfast pastries that you cook in a toaster.

"ipso" is a mistake (our current word "oops" comes from it)

"facto" means the statement is true ("fact")

"tierra del fuego" is a refernece to a certain body funtion / expulsion that occurs 20 minutes after eating an "ergo" (literally, "mud of fire.")

So, JR is saying that your post, in fact, reminds him of what happens after he mistakenly eats a frozen waffle.

AS such, his post is clearly a flame, and should be deleted.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"ergo" is one of those frozen breakfast pastries that you cook in a toaster.

"ipso" is a mistake (our current word "oops" comes from it)

"facto" means the statement is true ("fact")

"tierra del fuego" is a referenece to a certain body function / expulsion that occurs 20 minutes after eating an "ergo" (literally, "mud of fire.")

So, JR is saying that your post, in fact, reminds him of what happens after he mistakenly eats a frozen waffle.

AS such, his post is clearly a flame, and should be deleted.

"Lergo my ergo".....

It's facto, it's facto......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

AS such, his post is clearly a flame, and should be deleted.

That's a fact!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"ergo" is one of those frozen breakfast pastries that you cook in a toaster.

"ipso" is a mistake (our current word "oops" comes from it)

"facto" means the statement is true ("fact")

"tierra del fuego" is a refernece to a certain body funtion / expulsion that occurs 20 minutes after eating an "ergo" (literally, "mud of fire.")

So, JR is saying that your post, in fact, reminds him of what happens after he mistakenly eats a frozen waffle.

AS such, his post is clearly a flame, and should be deleted.

ROFLMAO

This gets my vote for post of the month!!!