In or out of bounds on save type play?

[hoopguy]

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.

Originally Posted by hoopguy

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

[Adam]

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?

[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."

[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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

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.

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.

[mutantducky]

and make sure the player gets two feet established inbounds.

Just kidding.

[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.

[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.

[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?