Player Out of Bounds/1st to touch inbounds

[joetip30]

Saw this in a middle school game last week and home coach went crazy!!!

A1 is underneath and goes up for a shot. The ball misses everything and falls to the floor untouched. A1's momentum carried him to have one foot over the out of bounds line underneath, then he came back in and grabbed the ball. The official did not call a violation, even though the coach was screaming that a player cannot come back in and touch the ball.

I believe the no call was the correct call based rule 7-1-1, Situation B. It indicates that a player who does not leave the court voluntarily and did not have control when he did, therefore he is safe to come back in and secure control.

LIke to know what others think...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by joetip30

Saw this in a middle school game last week and home coach went crazy!!!

A1 is underneath and goes up for a shot. The ball misses everything and falls to the floor untouched. A1's momentum carried him to have one foot over the out of bounds line underneath, then he came back in and grabbed the ball. The official did not call a violation, even though the coach was screaming that a player cannot come back in and touch the ball.

I believe the no call was the correct call based rule 7-1-1, Situation B. It indicates that a player who does not leave the court voluntarily and did not have control when he did, therefore he is safe to come back in and secure control.

LIke to know what others think...

You are correct. There are no restrictions on being the first to touch the ball as long as the player has established position in bounds. It doesn't even really matter if the player left "voluntarily" or not as long as they didn't leave for an "unauthorized" reason. Even if they do leave for an unauthorized reason, the violation is not for being the first to touch, it is for leaving the court.

There is no "first to touch" rule in high school basketball.

[shishstripes]

considered one of the most misunderstood rules

"• A player who is not a dribbler in control can keep (i.e., tap) a ball inbounds, go out of bounds, and return inbounds and play the ball!"

Tried to attach the entire file, which is only 48 kb but won't attach.

[grunewar]

12) 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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

12) 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.

I want to know Billy's basis for what's in red.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I want to know Billy's basis for what's in red.

9-3-3 and related case plays.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by joetip30

Saw this in a middle school game last week and home coach went crazy!!!

A1 is underneath and goes up for a shot. The ball misses everything and falls to the floor untouched. A1's momentum carried him to have one foot over the out of bounds line underneath, then he came back in and grabbed the ball. The official did not call a violation, even though the coach was screaming that a player cannot come back in and touch the ball.

I believe the no call was the correct call based rule 7-1-1, Situation B. It indicates that a player who does not leave the court voluntarily and did not have control when he did, therefore he is safe to come back in and secure control.

Like to know what others think...

The coach is a fool. The NCAA Case Book actually mentions this play directly as an example of legal action.

Out-of-Bounds Player, Ball
A.R. 157. A1 blocks a pass near the end line. The ball falls to the floor
inbounds but A1, who is off balance, falls outside the end line.
A1 returns to the playing court, secures control of the ball, and
dribbles.
RULING: Legal. A1 has not left the playing court voluntarily and
was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court. This
situation is similar to one in which A1 makes a try from under the
basket and momentum carries A1 off the playing court. The try is unsuccessful,
and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control
of the ball.
(Rule 7-1.1, 4-46.1.a and 9-4)

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The coach is a fool. The NCAA Case Book actually mentions this play directly as an example of legal action.

With all due respect, I'm not sure something from an NCAA Case Book is relevant in a middle school game. They almost always play NF rules. In fact, I'd be surprised if there was a middle school league that played anything else (in the US, that is).

[dbking]

URBAN LEGEND folklore. Correct call!

[knockitoff]

Had a play in a BV game last week where B1 in an attempt to defend A1 on a fast break, while hustling to get back on D his momentum carried him off the court under A's basket. The shot was missed, the rebound was "popped" straight up by players from both teams. In returning towards the court, B1 took two steps OOB, his third step was "in-bounds" and was a "leap" towards the rebound, which he eventually recovered with one foot very near the left side block and the other in between the block and the second hash mark. I called B1 OOB because he did not have both feet back "in bounds" before he touched the ball. B's coach didn't like the call, but accepted the "he hadn't returned to the court" response.
One thing that made this play so difficult, was the fact B1 recovered the ball so far onto the court.
Have not found a clear description of "return to court" in the books.
I procured a DVD of the game, have watched it many times, and still think I was right.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by knockitoff

Had a play in a BV game last week where B1 in an attempt to defend A1 on a fast break, while hustling to get back on D his momentum carried him off the court under A's basket. The shot was missed, the rebound was "popped" straight up by players from both teams. In returning towards the court, B1 took two steps OOB, his third step was "in-bounds" and was a "leap" towards the rebound, which he eventually recovered with one foot very near the left side block and the other in between the block and the second hash mark. I called B1 OOB because he did not have both feet back "in bounds" before he touched the ball. B's coach didn't like the call, but accepted the "he hadn't returned to the court" response.
One thing that made this play so difficult, was the fact B1 recovered the ball so far onto the court.
Have not found a clear description of "return to court" in the books.
I procured a DVD of the game, have watched it many times, and still think I was right.

When his third step ocurred, unless he had the other foot touching out of bounds he was in bounds. I think he should have been allowed to keep the rebound

Originally Posted by knockitoff

I called B1 OOB because he did not have both feet back "in bounds" before he touched the ball.

Something in & nothing out in bball.

B's coach didn't like the call

Good thing he didn't make a big deal about it.

I procured a DVD of the game, have watched it many times, and still think I was right.

Next time this occurs, you will know you're right

[Adam]

Originally Posted by knockitoff

I called B1 OOB because he did not have both feet back "in bounds" before he touched the ball. B's coach didn't like the call, but accepted the "he hadn't returned to the court" response.
One thing that made this play so difficult, was the fact B1 recovered the ball so far onto the court.
Have not found a clear description of "return to court" in the books.
I procured a DVD of the game, have watched it many times, and still think I was right.

As I read this, you were wrong. There is no rule that requires both feet to be in bounds. Something in and nothing out is all that is required.

Now, this coach will complain when the next official gets the call right.

[knockitoff]

My bad, should've said "still BELIEVE I was right".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by knockitoff

My bad, should've said "still BELIEVE I was right".

Lord knows I've made some calls in my time that were based on a misunderstanding of the rules. Live, call, and learn.