Rules Question!! Please help
 

Ok is a player considered out of bounds if a player is running and on foot steps out the other steps in and then gets a pass before the other foot touches in bounds or would the on foot in bounds be considered the last point of contact?

A player's location is determined by his last (or current) point of contact with the floor.
Examples.
1. Player standing with one foot out and one foot in, lifts the foot that was out so only his inbounds foot is on the floor. This player is in bounds.
2. Player standing OOB, takes one step in bounds and jumps off the foot that was in bounds. This player is in bounds.
3. Your example, the player is in bounds, as his last contact with the floor was in bounds.

Basically, all that's required to be in bounds is to have something in and nothing out.

Hope this helps.

You are considered to be located where you last touched. Unless the foot is still touching out of bounds, then the player is considered in bounds (if he is touching the in bounds area).

Peace

That's what I was thinking. I had some old folks telling me that both feet had to be inbounds before they are considered "inbounds." Thanks for the clarification.

Watch out for those "old folks" :)

Yup, they tend to forget things.

What if both feet are in-bounds, but the cane is touching out-of-bounds?

Not sure, I've never officiated the Jurassic League.

Just to further clarify (or muddy, depending on your POV)...

If a person is touching two areas simultaneously, he's in the one he probably doesn't want to be in.

IB + OOB = OOB
In the key + out of the key = in the key
Backcourt + frontcourt = backcourt
2 point area + 3 point area = 2 point area

And OOB trumps all. So OOB + frontcourt + backcourt = OOB.

Unless he's the thrower for a throw-in. :D

One foot + second foot +... :eek:

Also, a player who has one foot touching out of the key with the other foot in the air having last touched in the key is in the key....very different than the inbounds concept. To be out of the key, both feet must touch the floor out of the key.

His cane, obviously! :D

That's fifteen yards for unsportsmanlike caneduct. :o

Good Point ...
 

Good point regarding three second violations. Rookie officials, please take note.

Interesting Situation ...
 

Here's an interesting out of bounds situation.

NFHS 9-3-2 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.

Good point regarding the offensive team violation. Rookie officials, please take note.

However, please expand on the point at which a violation shall be called.

Play: the dribbler dribbles the ball by pushing it to the ground. While the ball is airborne (or touching the floor for that instant), the dribbler's feet touch OOB. Violation yet? If not, continue: the dribbler's feet touch back inbounds before the ball (bounced up again from the floor) is touched by the dribbler. Violation now?

It's a violation as soon as a player in control of the ball steps out of bounds. A dribbler is in control from the start.

Different issue, of course. If the thrower touches over the OOB line, while still touching OOB (or not), he has carried the ball onto the court. That's not a matter of the definition of player location, he's still located OOB. Rather he's committed a specific throw-in violation.

Come to think of it, that's the only case that comes to mind where the location of the other foot matters.

Rules citation?:confused:

I believe that this play is made clearest with a case, rather than a rule.

Rule or case book play, I don't care. I just want a reference.

Can you, or anybody else , cite a case book play that will back up Snaq's contention that it's a immediate violation as soon as the dribbler steps on the OOB line, even though the dribbler isn't in contact with the ball at that time?

Unfortunately I don't have my book with me today, but I do recall reading that

it's a immediate violation as soon as the dribbler steps on the OOB line, even though the dribbler isn't in contact with the ball at that time

in a NOTE under a rule.

Where's Nevada @?

Good call Ch1town! I forgot about that note's existance.

Rule 9, Section 3:
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds.
ART. 2 . . . A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.
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.
PENALTY (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception 4)

I'll have to remember that notes can often relay the same information that a nice case would.

9-3-1 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.

Cool, guys. Now point out to me where in that rule it actually says <b>WHEN</b> the violation occurs?

Please cite me some rules language, please, that states that the violation occurs on the step and not when the dribbler touches the ball again.

What is your call if the dribbler going up the right side steps on the OOB line without being in contact with the ball, and then hangs an immediate left and runs away from the ball without touching it again, and a teammate comes and gets the ball?

Note that the definition of a dribble states that it's ball movement caused by a player <b>batting</b> the ball to the floor. Rule 4-15-1.

Note that the definition of a "pass" in rule 4-31 says that it can be a player <b>batting</b> the ball to another player.

Soooooo, please tell me how y'all definitively know that the player that steps on an OOB line without touching the ball, and then doesn't touch it <b>again</b>, hasn't <b>ENDED</b> their dribble with a pass? Please tell me you how you can a violation on a "dribbler" who isn't a "dribbler" but is a "passer''...and by rules definition(4-31), has "passed" the ball before stepping on the line? Don't you stop being a "dribbler" when you "pass" the ball?

We've been through this one many times before- <i>ad infinitum</i>, <i>ad nauseum</i>. If anyone can cite definitive language to call a violation before the ball is touched again, please do so. Meanwhile, I ain't gonna argue it any further unless someone can cite some rules to back up their argument.

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

It could have said: The dribbler has committed a violation when he touches the ball after stepping on or outside a boundary.

How do we know it was a dribble and not a pass? We were watching the game. How do you ever award two shots for a foul in the act of shooting?
That could have been a pass, too.

Whoa JR you took it a steps further.
I thought what we were discussing was a dribbler stepping OOB & continuing the dribble.

If the dribbler steps OOB but doesn't touch the ball again after that, then I believe one should pass on a violation. Even though I've never seen that sitch it doesn't mean that it won't happen.
That being said, watch it happen to me in a camp setting! At least I now have a point of reference to be prepared when/if that ever happens.

I love this site!

If your goal was to point out that a hole (may) exist in the rulebook, I agree with you. However, to call the play according to the rule, I think the Fed's intent is rather clear. And in the end, is it a dribble or is it a pass; isn't what why we get paid the big bucks. ;)

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

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=10826

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.

"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.

Touch The Line, Blow The Whistle ...
 

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.

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.

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 <b>before</b> the player stepped OOB, that means that the player <b>wasn't</b> a "dribbler" <b>when</b> 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 <b>last</b>. And if the player doesn't touch the ball <b>again</b> after stepping OOB, you <b>know</b> when the last touch occurred. If it's touched <b>last</b> 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:
http://www.gifs.net/other/crit_suc.gif

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.

E Pluribus Unum Right Back At You ...
 

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. :(

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Ergo, ipso facto and tierra del fuego
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That was a highly amusing line by the ole dinosaur! :) I got a nice chuckle out of it.

"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.

<i>"Lergo my ergo"</i>.....

It's <i>facto</i>, it's <i>facto</i>......

That's a fact!

ROFLMAO

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

Another famous intellectual often used his own version of one of the above expressions, "ipso fatso." This, of course, was Archie Bunker. Come to think of it, I think that Archie also believed that a dribble was not a dribble until it was touched again by the dribbler after hitting the floor.

Was that the same guy that said "bang, zoom, to the moon" or did they just live in the same neighborhood?

Wow, you must be one of them young pups.

Archie Bunker was the character in the series, "All in the Family", which ran in the 1970's. Carrol O'Connor played Archie.

Ralph Kramden of the Honeymooners was the one that uttered the phrase, "I hope they like those jokes on the moon, Alice, 'cause that's where you're goin'...bang...zoom". The Honeymooners started as a sketch on the Jackie Gleason show back in the '50's, and I believe became it's own show in the late '50's.

Both shows were set in the NY city area, but I don't think it was the same neighborhood.

I'd tell you more, but I don't watch much TV. :rolleyes:

Check The White Pages ...
 

The Bunkers lived at 704 Howser Street, Queens, New York.

The Kramdens lived at 328 Chauncey Street, Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, New York.

The Honeymooners was also the basis for The Flintstones.