Help with 7-1-1

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What if the player is holding the ball, but losing his balance so he reaches over and puts his hand on a photographer who kneeling in the OOB area near the court? This action allows the player to regain his balance and not contact the OOB area.

By my interpretation of 7-1-1, this would be a legal play. Upon further review, 7.1.1 Sit A (b) is this play. However, the rule, also, requires a judgement as to whether or not the touch is inadvertent and/or A1 did it without gaining an advantage.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Lcubed48

By my interpretation of 7-1-1, this would be a legal play. Upon further review, 7.1.1 Sit A (b) is this play. However, the rule, also, requires a judgement as to whether or not the touch is inadvertent and/or A1 did it without gaining an advantage.

Where is advantage mentioned in the rule?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Where is advantage mentioned in the rule?

In the last line of the case play he mentioned: "Inadvertantly touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In the last line of the case play he mentioned: "Inadvertantly touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation."

Interesting; I suppose there's an inference that can be made here, and I would agree that gaining an advantage as Nevada suggests is likely outside the intent of the rule. Is that enough to call a violation in Nevada's play?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Interesting; I suppose there's an inference that can be made here, and I would agree that gaining an advantage as Nevada suggests is likely outside the intent of the rule. Is that enough to call a violation in Nevada's play?

Just call traveling?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just call traveling?

I was thinking of just going "thumbs up."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Interesting; I suppose there's an inference that can be made here, and I would agree that gaining an advantage as Nevada suggests is likely outside the intent of the rule. Is that enough to call a violation in Nevada's play?

I would think so; maybe the initial "touch" would've been inadvertant, but once the player used that contact to keep from falling and regain their balance, that makes the contact more than inadvertant and accidental.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would think so; maybe the initial "touch" would've been inadvertant, but once the player used that contact to keep from falling and regain their balance, that makes the contact more than inadvertant and accidental.

I knew that I could trust a Central Illinois guy to get it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In the last line of the case play he mentioned: "Inadvertantly touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation."

Obviously, I already knew the answer, but I felt that posing a question would be the best way to highlight this point to those discussing and reading this thread.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rufus

I'm re-reading my rule book in prep for the coming season and came across 7-1-1:

A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player/person, on or outside the boundary.

I'm trying to picture how the bolded section plays out. A1 and B1 both scramble for the ball. A1 dives and misses the ball and their momentum carries them out of bounds. B1, who dove after A1 did, secures the ball and lands on top of A1 with no other part of their body touching out of bounds.

Based on the rule citation would B1 be considered out of bounds?

Rufus:

Remember, for the purpose of this rule, the game officials are considered objects.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. But not objects of desire, .

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rufus:

Remember, for the purpose of this rule, the game officials are considered objects.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. But not objects of desire, .

I disagree. Game officials are persons and may be inadvertently touched while OOB without causing the player's status to become OOB.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Remember, for the purpose of this rule, the game officials are considered objects.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree. Game officials are persons and may be inadvertently touched while OOB without causing the player's status to become OOB.

7.1.1 SITUATION A: A1, while holding the ball inbounds near the sideline,
touches (a) player B1; (b) a photographer; (c) a coach; (d) an official, all of whom
are out of bounds. RULING: A1 is not out of bounds in (a), (b), (c) or (d). To be
out of bounds, A1 must touch the floor or some object on or outside a boundary
line. People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently
touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not
considered a violation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

7.1.1 SITUATION A: A1, while holding the ball inbounds near the sideline,
touches (a) player B1; (b) a photographer; (c) a coach; (d) an official, all of whom
are out of bounds. RULING: A1 is not out of bounds in (a), (b), (c) or (d). To be
out of bounds, A1 must touch the floor or some object on or outside a boundary
line. People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently
touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not
considered a violation.

Thank you Billy and Nevada. I have not perused my rules books and casebooks in a while and really have been paying more attention to baseball rules this summer. I should receive 100 lashes with a wet noodle.

But we still aren't objects of desire, .

MTD, Sr.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rufus:

Remember, for the purpose of this rule, the game officials are considered objects.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. But not objects of desire, .

I hate being objectified. But when you look good in polyester pants it is a burden we all must bare

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I hate being objectified. But when you look good in polyester pants it is a burden we all must bare

Pleeeease don't say "bare" to Mr. DeNucci...I'd like to keep my breakfast...