Help with 7-1-1
 

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?

Nope, but I've probably got a foul on B1.

The rule generally comes into play around the benches.

Technically, I think a player could jump in the air, land on the players sitting on the bench, and not be OOB until he/she touches either a seat or the floor.

Think of it this way - the rule prevents an unfair advantage by the defense by simply stepping OOB, and reaching out and touching the offensive player with the ball to then cause the offensive player to now be OOB.

Not to hijack my own post, but aren't you referring to 7-1-2a1 that states a ball is out of bounds when it touches or is touched by a player who is out of bounds?

Snaqs answered my original question and I'm still trying to chew on that one (not that the technical rule interpt is wrong, but rather how I'd explain it to a coach during a game).

Not exactly; 7-1-2 refers to the ball, while 7-1-1 refers to the player.

If B1 is standing OOB, or even just has 1 foot OOB, they are considered OOB per 4-35-2. Now, if A1, who is holding the ball, happens to touch B1, (or B1 reaches out and touches A1), and the "player/person" exception wasn't in 7-1-1, A1 would be now have caused the ball to go OOB, and would have committed a violation. I believe the exception also prevents a player who may be standing fully inbounds, and accidentally touching a player or coach who is fully OOB, from also committing a violation.

If B1, with one foot OOB, touched the ball while A1 is holding it, B1 would have caused the ball to go OOB, and would be the one to have committed a violation, as per 7-1-2.

Thanks M&M, that cleared it up.

Oh I thought this was a thread about what is the best thing to order at 7/11, my bad:D

The Slurpee - duh. :p

Corrected the above statement.</STRIKE>

While I know that's not the wording in the rule, I simply put that in for information. Can you think of any reason A1 would purposely touch a player or coach who's standing OOB?

Sure: a high five.
Also, situations could arise where a coach would touch his player (loud gym).

Well, I suppose you could also see a coach slap a player 'up side the head for not running the play correctly, too...

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

Now was that so hard?

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.

A little rules study !!
 

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?

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?

Just call traveling? :p

I was thinking of just going "thumbs up." :)

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.

Of course it is!
 

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

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.

Rufus:

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

MTD, Sr.


P.S. But not objects of desire, :D.

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

Officials Are People Too ...
 

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, :D.

MTD, Sr.

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

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

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