saving the ball by throwing it at the ref
 

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.

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! :D

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.

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

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 <B>player</B>, 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. :) )

Exactly, that would eliminate the dribble violation.

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

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. :)

You're not an attorney, are you? :D

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.)

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?

Two questions.

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

Your call.

<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.

I like that!

I think...

If my math skills stands correct, this would mean none of us are left??? :confused: :p

Nope: could be the same half.

It's a quotation. Nobody recognizes it?

There is a familiar Ring to it...

Oh Lord...

I recognize it -- it's right there in post #30.

And it's quoted in posts #31 and #32. So it's a famous quote.

And the more it's referred to, it's becoming even more famous!

Oh yeah. A few more quotes and it'll be the top google hit. :rolleyes: