In or out of bounds on save type play?
 

Saw this happen in my lunch time pick up game today and it made me wonder the ruling...

Ball is batted toward sideline near the division line. 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. In pick up this was an automatic out of bounds violation. I believe this is actually the right call as well because of 9-3-1 'Note: The dribbler has commited a violation if he/she steps on or outside a boundary, even though he/she is not touching the ball while he/she is out of bounds'

The reason I am posting is because of case play 7.1.1 situation D. In this case play the player saves an errant pass and steps back in bounds and is allowed to dribble the ball.

I believe it could be argued that if the player in my example had his first touch push the ball ahead and then went out of bounds then that could be considered the save and he could be allowed to dribble based on the case play above.

In real life I would call the situation I witnessed an out of bounds violation but these two opposing rulings seem to have some overlap.

Absolutely not...

9-3-1 is refering to the dribbler.

Something in & nothing out is the rule of thumb on re-establishing on court status.

Ch1town is right. Mostly. A more complete answer is...

It depends.

It depends on whether you judge that first bat to be the beginning of a dribble. If so, he is a dribbler and 9-3-1 Note applies. If you do not, it's a good save and "something in with nothing out" means he's good to go.

Making sticky judgments is why we make the big bucks. :)

And that further depends on whether you consider the dribble to be interrupted before the player steps OOB....which is usually the case....meaning he's not a dribbler at the moment he's out and it will be legal in most cases even if you consider the bat to be the start of a dribble.

I stand corrected, thanks BITS & CR! It depends fits this play much better w/out seeing it.

I would add that on this play, the benefit goes to the player. This is most likely not going to be a violation, unless the dribble is very clearly continuous and not "interrupted." How to determine that is the question. Personally, you know it when you see it, and it's so rare it'll stick out at you.

Normally, the ball will bounce more than once after he taps it and before he gains control.

Another way to think of it is, assume the same play happens away from the endline and immediately after his first tap, his teammate requests timeout. Would you grant the timeout?

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!

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."

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

I wouldn't. I don't see why anyone would call the initial contact a dribble. He's trying to save the ball from going OOB. There is no player control. The only reason he's able to start a dribble is because he's quick enough to get to it first.

The player makes an outstanding play. Don't be a plumber.

and make sure the player gets two feet established inbounds.

Just kidding. :D

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.

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. :D

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 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?

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.

my take
 

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.

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?

Not quite. The dribbler attempted to quickly change direction after the defender obtained a legal guarding position and lost her balance. As her momentum carried her towards out of bounds, she continued dribbling. When she realized she would not be able to stay in bounds, she stopped dribbling and let the ball keep bouncing in bounds while she stepped out of bounds due to her momentum. Once she regained her balance, she saw the ball was still bouncing, came in bounds and started to dribble again. The dribbler did not go out of bounds intentionally and she did not gain an advantage by going out of bounds.

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.

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?

Time out request answer;
In the online hypothetical world my answer is yes. The player has control of the ball so I would grant the timeout.

In the real world. Who is asking for the timeout? The coach? Obviously not the player who is busy trying to score. So, in the real world am I going to take my eyes off the player in the middle of a dribble move while being heavily defended? No. Once the play has settled down, I will look over and identify who is calling time out and grant it.

In the real world how can you ever call a time out in between a dribble? I DO understand the rational behind asking the question though and it makes sense.

I am enjoying this post and it is really useful when you know the rule but still need to look up the exact wording and of course double check to not sound too foolish. I really think this type of thing makes everyone involved better at officiating. Agreeing with one another has nothing to do with the learning process.


Edit - just want to add one point. In Welpe's situation, there was an interrupted dribble. The point I am arguing is the case where the player purposely dribbles on one side of the player and runs around the other side of the player and keeps on going. This is a case where a patient whistle is required. If the move works he has player control and if the move does not work he does not have player control. This is the same as any other dribble move, like through the legs or around the back but this move is more unusual.

Here you go, Snaqs:

4-15-5

An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

In my situation, I think it would be correct to say that the ball momentarily got away from the dribbler.

Thanks Welpe, you saved me a trip down the elevator. :)
I see it says nothing about losing control, only getting away from the dribbler. So, I maintain that in these cases, the benefit goes to calling it an interrupted dribble.

In the real world? If the ball bounces more than once between being touched by the dribbler, it's almost certainly interrupted.

Since Welpe did me a favor, I'm still convinced that an interrupted dribble is the right call, and therefore a play on.

As for the timeout: there are two or three of you out there, and chances are decent that a partner can see the coach if this play is happening in front of you as trail. Or a teammate right in front of the L or C could request it. You're right, the trail has other things to watch. Although it's not likely, the ball handler could request it as well if he thinks quickly enough and sees a defender coming to get the ball he voluntarily let go.

Personally, based on the definition of an interrupted dribble (which says nothing about control except for the result of the ruling), I think you'd be wrong to grant a timeout requested during this time. In that sense, an interrupted dribble is much like an airborne pass. There is no player control no matter how precise the throw was.

Edited to add: I agree this discussion is good, as it's deepening the understanding of this rule.

"it momentarily gets away from the dribbler"

I believe this is a HORRIBLE definition. What does that mean??? Total opinion of the referee on the play whether the ball "momentarily gets away from the dribbler." I truly believe the OP should be an OOB violation because player control NEVER ceased as no one deflected it and she goes OOB and comes back, but because of this definition's ambiguity it now puts me at an impasse. I think, because of this definition you could be right by calling this either way.

I also i would like to say in regards to the original post that on a "save" where A1 goes OOB, that I understand what people are saying about you deeming the save to be a dribble or not but I believe an easier way to help with this play is to determine whether it was a bat or a "controlled save". If a player just slaps the ball back onto the floor then he/she has the right to come back and gain possession and/or dribble, but if the player "cups" the ball in his hand and throws it back onto the floor then he/she is not allowed to be the first to touch the ball. I've always found that to make it easier and the wording is simpler to me.

Also, for those who work college ball, this is an important distinction because if the defensive team is the team that saves it, and does so in a controlled manner and the offensive team retains possession then this would be a reset of the shot clock vs. a defensive player slapping it back onto the floor which would not constitute a reset of the shot clock.

The thing is, there's no first to touch provision in NFHS. So if you deem the "controlled" save to be a dribble, you call the violation as soon as they step on OOB, not when they come back in and touch the ball. If you don't think it's a dribble, it's nothing and can't be.

Even in NCAA, your reasoning is off. The first to touch requires the player to be out of bounds on purpose, IIRC, so again, it's either a violation as soon as they step OOB or it's nothing.

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?

IMO, this sums it up perfectly. In this situation, which would be easier to explain to the coach, OOB or interrupted dribble? I think interrupted dribble. You da man, Snaqs! :D

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.

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.