saving the ball by throwing it at the ref

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

While watching the NIT game today a player dived on the floor but went out. I thought, hey he could have saved it but what if he threw it against the ref who was standing there? If he did it on accident and the ball stays live then yes play on. But what if it were on purpose? Is using the ref to keep the ball inbounds an automatic violation or even a Tech?

The ball hitting an official is the same as hitting the floor. If the official is standing inbounds, I would consider this the start of a dribble. If the official is standing out of bounds, it would be an out of bounds violation. I don't see why this would be considered a tech at all unless he fired it at the official with malicious intent to do harm.

Originally Posted by Indianaref

The ball hitting an official is the same as hitting the floor. If the official is standing inbounds, I would consider this the start of a dribble. If the official is standing out of bounds, it would be an out of bounds violation. I don't see why this would be considered a tech at all unless he fired it at the official with malicious intent to do harm.

What fun you would have when you call that double dribble...I actually had that in a HS girls' game, and the visiting coach went ballastic because it went against her, saying that wasn't the right call. When I explained it, she still wasn't happy. Before the boys' game started, she came up to apologize because the boys' coach explained it to her and it was the exact same explanation.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

The ball hitting an official is the same as hitting the floor. If the official is standing inbounds, I would consider this the start of a dribble. If the official is standing out of bounds, it would be an out of bounds violation. I don't see why this would be considered a tech at all unless he fired it at the official with malicious intent to do harm.

What if, ...

The official was straddling the line and the ball hit the official's inbound foot ?

Originally Posted by mick

What if, ...

The official was straddling the line and the ball hit the official's inbound foot ?

Tweet...*pausing*...DOUBLE DRIBBLE. Either way, there's going to be a violation! Sell this one really good, and see the ensuing chaos when the coach doesn't understand the call!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Tweet...*pausing*...DOUBLE DRIBBLE. Either way, there's going to be a violation! Sell this one really good, and see the ensuing chaos when the coach doesn't understand the call!

Ok, just to add to mick's question - what if the player hadn't used their dribble yet, and there is no illegal dribble violation?

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, just to add to mick's question - what if the player hadn't used their dribble yet, and there is no illegal dribble violation?

I've got an OOB. I don't have my books with me but somewhere around 4-4, I think it refers to a ball touching a ref as having the same location as that individual. If the ref has one foot OOB, then his location is OOB. That's my reasoning and I'm sticking with it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

I've got an OOB. I don't have my books with me but somewhere around 4-4, I think it refers to a ball touching a ref as having the same location as that individual. If the ref has one foot OOB, then his location is OOB. That's my reasoning and I'm sticking with it.

You're right, that section does refer to ball location, and the fact that the ball has the same location as the official when it touches the official.

However, you're thinking the official is deemed OOB, because one foot is out, even though the ball touched the leg that is still inbounds. That would be correct if you were talking specifically about a player, which is covered in 4-35. But does that also cover the official's location? Isn't the official more like an "object", in terms of inbounds vs. OOB? If you consider an "object" to be OOB because part of it is, how come the backboard isn't considered OOB, since it's attached to something that is OOB?

(Btw, I'm not 100% sure of the answer, so I would like to be convinced one way or the other. )

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You're right, that section does refer to ball location, and the fact that the ball has the same location as the official when it touches the official.

However, you're thinking the official is deemed OOB, because one foot is out, even though the ball touched the leg that is still inbounds. That would be correct if you were talking specifically about a player, which is covered in 4-35. But does that also cover the official's location? Isn't the official more like an "object", in terms of inbounds vs. OOB? If you consider an "object" to be OOB because part of it is, how come the backboard isn't considered OOB, since it's attached to something that is OOB?

(Btw, I'm not 100% sure of the answer, so I would like to be convinced one way or the other. )

I too am less than 100% sure of the answer and am making up my arguments as I go. But for arguments sake, how about this.

I consider the ref to have the same IB/OOB location as a player because he/she can change their location. Objects like a backboard cannot. In addition, not all of the backboard is considered inbounds.

And the foot bone is connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone is connected . . . well you know.

[mick]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, just to add to mick's question - what if the player hadn't used their dribble yet, and there is no illegal dribble violation?

...Or what if the player's teammate touches first?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mick

...Or what if the player's teammate touches first?

Exactly, that would eliminate the dribble violation.

These kids are just trying to get out of answering the question.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, just to add to mick's question - what if the player hadn't used their dribble yet, and there is no illegal dribble violation?

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

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

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