Dribbler goes out of bounds & is first to touch the ball again
 

A1 loses control of his/her dribble and A1 goes completely out of bounds. The ball remains bouncing on the floor (inbounds). A1 re-establishes both feet inbounds and is the first person to touch the ball. Is this play legal?

What rule would make it illegal?

What rule says a player has to get two feet inbounds when out of bounds? :confused:

Hint, there isn't one.

You should throw a flag for illegal touching:D

Don't confuse the throw-in violation where the thrower can't be the first to touch. Your play is a legal play as long as A1's player location is inbounds when he/she touches the ball.

There is a worrisome case here, but it's not this one. The key to your case is the judgment that A1 lost control of the dribble. At that point, A1 can be OOB, return inbounds (something in and nothing out), and then touch the ball legally.

The worrisome case is the one where A1 does NOT lose control of his dribble, but sees that he will go OOB. He stops dribbling, steps OOB, steps back in, and resumes dribbling. That's an OOB violation on A1, who retains player control while dribbling.

How can these two things both be true? :confused:

The other possible violation would be that A1 deliberately ran out of bounds to avoid traffic on the court in his effort to retrieve the ball.

So Much To Say, So Little Band Width ...
 

During an interrupted dribble: Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble.

If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he or she can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

The dribbler (not an interpreted dribble) has committed 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.

You are where you were until you get where you're going.

Must have something in and nothing out.

Fair question. I mean he just allows the ball to bounce by itself while he steps OOB.

Then I would think he's not a dribbler. Is he?

What ends a dribble?

No one has said that the dribble has ended. It's just interrupted because, as we both agree, he stopped dribbling.

And that's completely legal. There's nothing in the definition of an interrupted dribble that says it has to be an accidentally loss of control.

4-15-5
An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler.

The play you posted is legal.

A Twist In The Plot ...
 

In the original post, yes.

But it is possible for a dribbler, not an interrupted dribbler, to step out of bounds, while not in contact with the ball, which is bouncing in bounds, and be in violation of the out of bounds a rule.

NFHS 9-3-1-Note: The dribbler has committed 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.

While true, that doesn't have anything to do with the poster's question, because all parties have agreed that the player had STOPPED dribbling when he stepped out of bounds.

edit by poster
 

I should have mentioned that A1 left the floor involuntarily. A1s momentum carried her OOB. I mentioned two feet were re-established inbounds but even if only one were established that should not affect the call.

Thank you for all the replies. I thought the play was legal. My partner made the violation call. I have seen this sitiuation happen more than once.

Of all the basketball myths, this seems to be one that most pervades the ranks of officials. Between this one and the "all non-shooters must go on the other side of the division line for Technical or Intentional foul free throws" myth, I can't tell which has more officials hoodwinked.

Cmon!
 

Why don't you just put it up on a tee so Billy can hit it out of the park.......:rolleyes:

Going, Going, Gone ...
 

See post #9, Paragraph 2.

While this is generally the case, the obvious situation makes this statement potentially incorrect. A1 must have at least one foot inbounds, BUT cannot have the other out of bounds.

If the ball is bouncing where A1 wants it to bounce, it hasn't gotten away from the dribbler. I don't think an intentional act can fit the definition of "gets away from the dribbler."

I disagree; if he's more than arms reach from it, he's given up control.
If he's allowing it to bounce multiple times between touches, I'd say he's given up control. Ample opportunity for a defender to take it, IMO.

But the definition of an interrupted dribble is not ample opportunity for a defender or even giving up control. It's a deflection of the dribble or a ball getting away from the dribbler. Both of these are accidental, not intentional.

There's simply no provision in the rules to intentionally cause an interrupted dribble.

+1

The FED defined an interrupted dribble a long, long time ago. They said your dribble was interrupted if you could not immediately dribble again. And that's also why there's no player control during an interrupted dribble. If you can't immediately dribble the ball, quite obviously you also can't have player control of the ball at the same time.

The rule says that the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler during an interrupted dribble. Intent on the part of dribbler has never been a part of that definition. Thank God too for that. Mind reading ain't one of my strengths. :)

If I leave the ball, has it gotten away from me?

See NFHS rule 4-15-2. A dribbler can batt the ball over the head of the defender and then legally run around the defender and dribble again, as long as he has lets the ball bounce once or several times after the batt. The period between the batt and the continuance of the dribble is an interrupted dribble. It momentarily got away from the dribbler, by rules definition, and there is no player control during that time.

By rule definition, it sure has. The rule simply says "momentarily gets away from the dribbler". Intent has never been mentioned as being any part of that definition.

You're thinking waaaaaaaay too much on this one, Eastshire, imho. You're trying to read something into the rule....intent.... that just isn't there.

Maybe I am, but I don't think so. I think you are reading a specified distance into the rule that isn't there.

Your scenario isn't an interrupted dribble. It's just a dribble. The player is controlling the ball. It hasn't gotten away from him.

The common meaning of the phrase "gets away" is unintentional movement. If the player puts the ball where he wants it the ball has not gotten away. The rules do not include any statement about the ball being outside of an arm's reach or any other distance.

No dribbler wants the ball at a location where they can't reach it.

In the case of a dribbler going OOB but leaving the ball inbounds, that is a matter of judgement.

It is a matter of the "choices" A1 has. It is not a matter of distance (although distance can be a clue) or the number of bounces (but that too can be a clue), but a matter of continuous control....of both the ball and player location.

In the event A1 leaves the ball and goes OOB because of momentum, they are not choosing to go OOB. Batting the ball back inbounds until they can return is NOT a dribble. It is an attempt ot save the ball from going OOB. Since they've not ended the dribble, they can resume it upon returning.

However, if A1, while fully in control, chooses to bounce the ball to some location and goes OOB around a defender to get to the ball, A1 has violated.....call it either an OOB violation or leaving the court without authorization, but it the result is the same.

Not true as Jurassic's scenario shows.

It is a dribble. A1 has batted the ball to the floor. That's the definition of a dribble. I'll grant you it is rarely a controlled dribble and generally the ball gets away making it an interrupted dribble.

Now that you mention it, you really are going to end up with one violation or the other.

Nope, I am reading the literal meaning of "player control" the exact same way that the rules makers intended it to be read. If you can't immediately dribble, there is nowayinhell you can have player control at the same time. Quite simply, you can't control the ball if you can't reach it. And intent has never been inserted into the equation either, for reasons that at least to me are quite simple. We aren't mind readers. We have no real idea what any dribbler is actually intending to do. We have to guess their intent. Guessing is never a good officiating practice.

As I said, you're overthinking the heck out of the play imo by inserting your own idea of how the rule should read rather than the way that it actually does read. Intent is never mentioned rules-wise anywhere.

Player control is defined by rule as holding or dribbling the ball. And the rules also state that there is no player control during an interrupted dribble. Are you really trying to tell me that a dribbler still has player control after he batted their dribble over the defender and the dribbler now has that defender between him and the ball?

It may start as a dribble, but it usually becomes an interrupted when the two (ball/player) are separated.

Not always. If the player is OOB due to momentum and they are not actively dribbling the ball, you've got nothing.

Actually, I think that such a player is in control. That move is defined as part of the dribbing rule and is considered part of a dribble. When such a move is executed, the ball handler (dribbler) will, if done correctly, be around the defender when the ball is coming down....hence the part about allowing the ball to bounce. If they don't execute it correctly, then it may become an interupted dribble.

By rule, yes, he has player control because he is dribbling and it isn't, by definition, an interrupted dribble.

Player control is a tightly defined term. You aren't using that definition. Instead, you are using the concept of a player in control of the ball. They are not exactly the same.

The rule says an interrupted dribble happens when "it [the ball] momentarily gets away from the dribbler." In that sentence the ball is the actor. If the dribbler puts the ball where he wants it, it hasn't gotten away. It's been acted on, instead of acting. (Yes, the ball doesn't ever technically act of its own, but I think the way the sentence is structured shows the accidental nature of an interrupted dribble.)

We are required to determine intent throughout the rules. A few examples include intentionally kicking the ball, striking the ball with a fist, causing it to enter and pass through the basket from below (all 9-3-4), leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason (9-3-3), grasp the basket except to prevent injury (10-3-3), intentionally slap or strike the backboard (10-3-4b) and so forth.

It's not easy to determine intent, but that's why we are paid the big bucks.

Maybe so in the context of dribbling. If that is what you meant, fine.

But intent is all over the rules: intentional fouls (fouls "designed" to stop the clok), shooting or not when a foul is called but the ball never leaves the player's hands, kicking the ball, slapping the backboard (attempt, even a poor attempt, to block a shot or not), contact that might be considered flagrant (or just aggressively clumsy), etc.

Nor do they include any statement about a requirement that it be accidental.

I disagree. the phrase "ball gets away" precludes any intentional action on the part of the dribbler. The ball cannot get away by the dribbler's intention. It would be an oxymoron.

No, it doesn't peclude anything. If it said the player "accidentally lets the ball get away," or "player accidentally gives up control," you'd be correct. There's nothing in that statement that precludes intent; except to you.

Players intentionally give up control all the time on plays where the ball goes precisely where they intended it to go.

Intent has absolutely nothing to do with that. If someone throws a pass off the back of B2's head and it goes up through the basket, B2 has violated. B2 had no idea it was even coming much less intent to knock it up through the basket.

You're right. I was passing the intentionally through the rest of the clauses but it really only applies to kicking.

You have to completely change the subject of the sentence to get there. The rule talks about what the ball is doing, not what the player is doing. The difference is important.

What difference does this make? I'm not saying a player can't intentionally give up control. I'm saying a player can't intentionally start an interrupted dribble.

Precedent, that's all. The ball gets away from the player, the rule says nothing about how it happened. Whether it's forced away intentionally, or it accidentally gets away.

The ball doesn't do anything on its own. It's not a Quidditch snitch.

:shrug: I think you're reaching to make the rule fit what you want it to say rather than just read it.

I've never before heard anyone describe a ball that has been forced away as getting away. It's not the common meaning of the term.

You're reading way too much into this rule.

I maintain I'm reading less into it than the other side.

Naw, you're adding something to the rule that isn't in it anywhere...and what you're adding is intent. We're at the "repeating the same thing over and over" stage though. Time to let 'er go.

Dribbling...and specifically an interrupted dribble... was exactly the context that I was referring to. Agree of course that intent is certainly meaningful in other areas of the rules.

I had this play the other night in an 8th grade game. Rebounder gets the ball and begins his dribble parallel to the endline. His momentum is going to carry him out of bounds, so he let's the ball continue to bounce in bounds. He gets a foot back in bounds and continues the dribble with one hand, did not catch the ball. Picked up his dribble on a bounce. I had no violation. He did not have control of the ball while OOB. Established his inbounds position with one foot and continued dribble, so no double dribble, either.

Separate question...if the player had caught the ball in the above situation and then continued his dribble, would you have double dribble? I would have called it.

Absolutely would have been. Great no-call.

Regardless of whether you consider it an interrupted dribble or not, it ends when A1 catches the ball. If A1 starts another dribble, it will be an illegal dribble.