<font color=red>I think we could do a whole new thread just on this question alone.</font color> :D

Just FYI - I'm leaning towards giving the official and the player the same status when it comes to inbounds/OOB, or frontcourt/backcourt status.

Unless someone convinces me otherwise.

(I used to be indecisive. But now I'm not so sure.)

I'm leaning to getting the heck out of the way, or at least [unless the official is a sundial] he's lifting one foot in an attempt to escape in this unlikely situation.

From Wikipedia: There are also hypothetical persons, sentient non-human persons such as sentient extraterrestrial life and self aware machines.

I think coaches fall into this category.

if the hitting the ref is the same as hitting the floor, you must look at where it hit the ref. forget about strandling the line. that is a distraction. the ball hit the floor inbounds because it hit the ref's body part that was inbounds.

Go with OOB. Gotta give the coaches something to howl about. :D

Ok - at least you're consistent with your reasoning. :D

I don't have books with me so correct me if I am wrong. 4-4-? lumps player and official together when determining ball location. Therefore, I am using the same criteria for player and official.

I think the case book uses the "same as touching the floor where the official is standing" reference. In your argument; is an official who's left foot is touching inbounds and who's right foot is not touching the floor but clearly outside the inbounds playing area still inbounds? What if the ball hits his right foot and caroms inbounds?

I do not believe an official can be inbounds and OOB or in the FC and the BC at the same time.

4-4-4 is the rule. However, the wording is slightly different than what you remember, hence our discussion. "A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location." 4-35 covers player location, but does not specifically mention the location of an official. So, when the ball hits the official's leg that is inbounds, is "the ball touching the floor at that individual's location" inbounds?

How would that be any different than hitting a player's foot/hand/torso/head in that same situation? Clearly still inbounds.

Can you find the rule reference or case play to back that up? Again, that's the direction I'm leaning, but I wish someone could back up their argument with hard evidence one way or the other. If not, mick's suggetion is best: get out of the way so you don't have to make that decision! :)

4-35 refers to the location of both a player and a nonplayer. Since it is not specified elsewhere, as far as I know, we must assume that an official is a nonplayer.

There shouldn't be a problem for most officials to get out of the way, because they are generally moving and purposely giving way to get that 'great view'.

Now, what happens when *Partner* gets hit in that awkward position and, wide-eyed, looks to us for help.

Hmm, you know, that specific wording did escape me. Curious that "nonplayer" is not mentioned elsewhere in that same section.

Ok, good enough for me. I can now leave work knowing I accomplished something today. :D

Even though I was kinda on the fence, I was leaning pretty heavily towards the "player location is the same as official location" side. Besides, the grass was looking greener on that side...

So, now thanks to jar, I can come up to my partner and semi-confidently give them the information they need. (As far as the wide-eyed look, I use that alot myself.)

I think semi-confidence is about as good as it gets for half a rule.

You're more than half-right about that.

I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.