saving the ball by throwing it at the ref

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

I too am less than 100% sure of the answer and am making up my arguments as I go.

You're not an attorney, are you?

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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.

I know my backboard analogy may not be accurate, because the rules specifically state which parts are inbounds and which parts are out. But they are connected (backboard conneted to the bracket, the bracket connected to the support,...well, you know. ) And, the ball can touch the "inbounds part" without being considered OOB simply because that part is connected to something that is OOB. Follow the logic? So there is some basis in the rules for considering ball location to be inbounds even though it is touching something that is also connected to something OOB.

I'm not sure the "changing location" applies, although I see what you're getting at.

My hangup is still the issue of player location vs. object location. Even though an official is a person like a player, under basketball rules the official is closer to an object. (I don't like being objectified, but I guess it comes with the territory.)

[mick]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

My hangup is still the issue of player location vs. object location. Even though an official is a person like a player, under basketball rules the official is closer to an object. (I don't like being objectified, but I guess it comes with the territory.)

Let's move this to the division line.

Offense controlled ball hits Trail [straddling line] on frontcourt foot.
Where is the ball ?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mick

Let's move this to the division line.

Offense controlled ball hits Trail [straddling line] on frontcourt foot.
Where is the ball ?

Rolling around on the floor somewhere?

Same issue - is "player location", as defined in 4-35, the same as "official's location"?

What about a coach's location? Coach is straddling the sideline, and a pass hits his inbounds leg? Is the ball simply OOB because the other leg was OOB? Or is it a possible T because his leg is considered inbounds?

[mick]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Rolling around on the floor somewhere?

Same issue - is "player location", as defined in 4-35, the same as "official's location"?

What about a coach's location? Coach is straddling the sideline, and a pass hits his inbounds leg? Is the ball simply OOB because the other leg was OOB? Or is it a possible T because his leg is considered inbounds?

Two questions.

1. Is the coach a person?
2. Is the coach out of the box?

Your call.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mick

Two questions.

1. Is the coach a person?
2. Is the coach out of the box?

Your call.

I think we could do a whole new thread just on this question alone.

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.)

[mick]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think we could do a whole new thread just on this question alone.

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mick

Is the coach a person?

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.

[ronald]

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.