In or out of bounds on save type play?

[Welpe]

Sorry to bring this to the top again but something similar happened today during a scrimmage and I figure I'd continue an existing thread.

A1 is dribbling down the court quickly along the sideline. As A1 progresses into the front court, B1 gains a legal guarding position against A1. Seeing this, A1 attempts to change direction but loses her balance and her momentum carries her towards the sideline. She releases the ball and lets it bounce inbounds while her momentum carries her out of bounds.

Seeing the ball is still bouncing free, she returns inbounds and resumes her dribble. The covering official called an out of bounds violation. We were told this was not a correct call because she did not voluntarily go out of bounds.

I was watching from the sideline, waiting to rotate in to officiate and the play happened right in front of me. In my judgment, the dribbler realized she was going out of bounds due to her mometum and stopped dribbling as to not carry the ball out of bounds with her. It did not appear to be interrupted or a fumble to me.

This seems to me to be a violation for a dribbler going out of bounds even though she was not touching the ball. What does everybody else think?

Thanks!

[Back In The Saddle]

It sounds like there was some confusion over two different rules. I'm working on the assumption you're playing by NFHS rules...

Leaving voluntarily or not has no bearing on whether this is an OOB violation. It relates to whether you have a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. The key to whether this is an OOB violation is do you consider the dribble to be interrupted or not. If not, she has committed an OOB violation.

If you're playing under NCAA rules, however, leaving voluntarily is an important distinction. NCAA 9-4.1 "A player who steps out of bounds under his/her own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

If you're playing under NCAA rules, however, leaving voluntarily is an important distinction. NCAA 9-4.1 "A player who steps out of bounds under his/her own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation."

I think it's a mis-interpretation of 9-4.1 to apply it to this play.

9-4.1 is to prevent such actions as someone running around a screen and then receiving a pass.

[Scratch85]

A dribble is interrupted if it "momentarily gets away from the dribbler." In Welpe's post he states the player saw the ball "bouncing" still in bounds.

IMO, if the player did not do anything to end her dribble, the action is legal. If she did end her dribble then the ruling in 7.1.1D would "shoehorn" into this situation.

Sorry BITS, once you start a bad habit like shoehorning, it is difficult to stop.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it's a mis-interpretation of 9-4.1 to apply it to this play.

9-4.1 is to prevent such actions as someone running around a screen and then receiving a pass.

You may be right. It is my current, though perhaps incorrect, understanding that 9-4.1 is the NCAA equivalent of both NFHS 9-3-3 and NFHS 9-3-1 Note. As the 9-3-3 equivalent, it is a little different in that there is the "first to touch" provision. As the 9-3-1 Note equivalent, that "first to touch" provision is in keeping with the dribble rules.

Is my understanding flawed?

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Welpe

A1 is dribbling down the court quickly along the sideline. As A1 progresses into the front court, B1 gains a legal guarding position against A1. Seeing this, A1 attempts to change direction but loses her balance and her momentum carries her towards the sideline. She releases the ball and lets it bounce inbounds while her momentum carries her out of bounds.

The key is the definition of an interrupted dribble. If you feel the dribble was interrupted, you have no OOB violation. We've debated this in the past and you'll get differing opinions but that is the root of the answer.

Mregor

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Sorry to bring this to the top again but something similar happened today during a scrimmage and I figure I'd continue an existing thread.

A1 is dribbling down the court quickly along the sideline. As A1 progresses into the front court, B1 gains a legal guarding position against A1. Seeing this, A1 attempts to change direction but loses her balance and her momentum carries her towards the sideline. She releases the ball and lets it bounce inbounds while her momentum carries her out of bounds.

Seeing the ball is still bouncing free, she returns inbounds and resumes her dribble. The covering official called an out of bounds violation. We were told this was not a correct call because she did not voluntarily go out of bounds.

I was watching from the sideline, waiting to rotate in to officiate and the play happened right in front of me. In my judgment, the dribbler realized she was going out of bounds due to her mometum and stopped dribbling as to not carry the ball out of bounds with her. It did not appear to be interrupted or a fumble to me.

This seems to me to be a violation for a dribbler going out of bounds even though she was not touching the ball. What does everybody else think?

Thanks!

Play on, most likely. Whether the dribble is interrupted is the only thing that's important, and it has nothing to do with intent. By releasing the ball and allowing it to bounce away from her, she had relinquished control. The way I read it, interrupted dribble and play on.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Play on, most likely. Whether the dribble is interrupted is the only thing that's important, and it has nothing to do with intent. By releasing the ball and allowing it to bounce away from her, she had relinquished control. The way I read it, interrupted dribble and play on.

You know, after re-reading the definition of an interrupted dribble, I think I agree that it was an interrupted dribble and a good, heads up play. Thanks for the input.

[hoopguy]

Not sure if I am reading your situation right but here is what I am picturing. Ball handler is dribbling down the sideline, defender gains legal guarding position right next to the sideline. Ball handler, in order not to charge into defender, pushes ball forward toward the court side of the defender and runs oob around the defender and resumes dribble. I would call oob violation but you could also go with the leaving the court violation. This is a hockey play where you push the puck to one side and skate to the other. I am also seeing it in pick up basketball but not with the sideline issue.

Seems like the offensive player gained a distinct advantage by running out of bounds around the defender and this is not allowed.

[Adam]

hoopguy, you're right about going out of bounds without an authorized reason, if he goes completely out of bounds. If he just steps on the line, however, I'd leave that one alone.

Please review the definition of interrupted dribble, it says nothing about being accidental or gaining an advantage. The fact is, this dribble is interrupted and you can't call an OOB violation if he's not touching the ball.

Let me ask you this, would you allow a timeout request while the ball is bouncing on the opposite site of the defender?

[hoopguy]

I should have been more specific about my point. I am arguing that this is not an interrupted dribble. The ball handler purposely dribbled the ball past the defender on one side and ran around the defender on the other side and away he/she went. For it to be interrupted the dribbler would need to lose control or have the defender touch the ball. This is a designed move the player is using to beat the defender. It is a dribble move like behind-the-back or cross-over. I have also seen the dribbler do the same thing but instead of pushing the ball to the side of the defender, the dribbler pushes it through the defenders legs. Either way it is just a dribble move to beat the defender and perfectly legal as long as the dribbler does not go out of bounds

The out of bounds for an unauthorized reason leaves it up to the people making the big bucks in the striped shirt to decide if the reason is authorized. From the rule book before rule 1 'a player or team should not be permitted an advantage that is not intended by a rule'. To me, going out of bounds and gaining an advantage in doing so would automatically mean that the going out of bounds is 'for an unauthorized reason' even though it does not specifically mention 'gaining an advantage' in the rule.

[Adam]

I'll have to go to my car and get the book now, but we'll need to review the definition of an interrupted dribble. I don't recall it having any requirement for losing control or having it touched by the defense.

Let me ask again, would you grant a timeout during this period of time?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

A1 is first to the ball and bats it forward. A1's momentum carries him out of bounds. A1 then steps in bounds and dribbles the ball.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

I should have been more specific about my point. I am arguing that this is not an interrupted dribble. The ball handler purposely dribbled the ball past the defender on one side and ran around the defender on the other side and away he/she went.

So, which are we talking about? Momentum carried him out, or he purposely pushed the ball to one side and ran around the other side? Sounds dramatically different to me.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

hoopguy, you're right about going out of bounds without an authorized reason, if he goes completely out of bounds. If he just steps on the line, however, I'd leave that one alone.

By definition, there is no completely out of bounds, is there? If the player deliberately goes around a defender or a screen and gains an advantage, stepping on the line would be as much a violation as running through the bleachers, would it not?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

By definition, there is no completely out of bounds, is there? If the player deliberately goes around a defender or a screen and gains an advantage, stepping on the line would be as much a violation as running through the bleachers, would it not?

True enough, but this violation is enough of a booger, unless instructed otherwise by the Powers, I'm not going to call a player for stepping on the line. In this situation, I think you can assume they intended to stay in bounds and their momentum carried them a bit too far.