Help with 7-1-1

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes, if a player were losing his balance and someone to keep him from falling.

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.

[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.

[River Ref]

"May not touch an object or person oob to gain an advantage." Should be added I think.