Interrupted Dribble - Out of Bounds

[OHBBREF]

Rule 9
SECTION 3 OUT OF BOUNDS
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.
PENALTYSection 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)

The interupted dribble would not apply in this instance and therefore once reestablished there would be no violation.
I do not see leaving the floor to avoid contact with an opponent, provided the player returns immediately in approximately the same area, as an unauthorized reason.
Going OOB at the 3 point line and returning on the other side of the lane could be a problem, leaving at the 28 ft line in the back court and returning somewhere near the baseline and being 6 ft OOB is a problem

[CallMeMrRef]

[QUOTE=OHBBREF;586061]I do not see leaving the floor to avoid contact with an opponent, provided the player returns immediately in approximately the same area, as an unauthorized reason./QUOTE]

Wasn't this rule directed at just that situation: e.g, baseline screen - either the offensive or defensive player runs out of bounds TO AVOID CONTACT WITH AN OPPONENT. Isn't this the situation that led to the rule change?

I am not trying to split hairs here, just wondering if one section of the rules (unauthorized reason) would trump the preexisting rule of not o-o-b on an interrupted dribble, or if that point was even given consideration.

The actual play occurred in a PA district final game - official called nothing and the player in question banked home a 3 point attempt with 5 seconds on the clock to send the game into OT! (that team lost in OT, BTW) If you want to view the play go to the 2:55 minute mark of the following video:

2009 Basketball District 1 Championships Day 2 Highlights (2/28)

Note: it is probably a stretch to call the actual play an interrupted dribble, but it was in talking about this play that that scenario/question was born.

[Adam]

I can't watch the play from this computer, but I'll repeat what I said before. If he's just stepping on the line, it's nothing. If he runs 6 feet outside the line, call it. Anywhere in between is judgment.

As for determining if it's an interrupted dribble or not; my rule of thumb is if it bounces more than once between contacts with the player's hand, it's probably interrupted.

[Raymond]

[QUOTE=CallMeMrRef;586223]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

I do not see leaving the floor to avoid contact with an opponent, provided the player returns immediately in approximately the same area, as an unauthorized reason./QUOTE]

Wasn't this rule directed at just that situation: e.g, baseline screen - either the offensive or defensive player runs out of bounds TO AVOID CONTACT WITH AN OPPONENT. Isn't this the situation that led to the rule change?

I am not trying to split hairs here, just wondering if one section of the rules (unauthorized reason) would trump the preexisting rule of not o-o-b on an interrupted dribble, or if that point was even given consideration.

The actual play occurred in a PA district final game - official called nothing and the player in question banked home a 3 point attempt with 5 seconds on the clock to send the game into OT! (that team lost in OT, BTW) If you want to view the play go to the 2:55 minute mark of the following video:

2009 Basketball District 1 Championships Day 2 Highlights (2/28)

Note: it is probably a stretch to call the actual play an interrupted dribble, but it was in talking about this play that that scenario/question was born.

Based on the angle of this video and what I saw of the dribble I would say a violation. He left the court to get around the defender.

[mutantducky]

violation.