What can they do now?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

None of these plays matches the OP, which involves a dribbler in control who subsequently goes out of bounds. It is necessary in this play to determine when the dribble became an interrupted dribble.

The principle is Sit D is the same as the interrupted dribble sitch of the OP. I do agree that the official must deem that player control was relinquished before the player stepped OOB.

[mbyron]

He only seemed to retain control of the ball because there was nobody else in the BC. As I'm envisioning this play, it's perfectly legal.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

He only seemed to retain control of the ball because there was nobody else in the BC. As I'm envisioning this play, it's perfectly legal.

mb,
While I don't disagree that this COULD be a legal play, it could also be a violation. The key judgment is was this an interupted dribble or not. If an interupted dribble (off the leg play is much clearer, in my opinion), then play is legal. If a player is dribbling, touches out of bounds, he is out of bounds and has committed a violation.

Without judgment, making a blanket statement that if the player "falls" or otherwise has his/her momentum carry him/her out of bounds, then retrieves the ball is ALWAYS legal, would mean that any time a dribbler looked down and saw his/her foot on a sideline/endline, he/she could simply "fall" out of bounds and immediately come back onto the court and continue dribbling. Judgment as to whether the dribble was actually interupted is important.