out of bounds rule.

[socal]

It says in this thread that if a player goes out of bounds, he can establish him/her self inbounds if no part of them self is out of bounds, therefore it only takes one foot that is inbounds.

The exact situation is, player is inbounds, dives to save the ball, the ball is saved and is bouncing inbounds, he slides out of bounds, gets back up, a team mate now has possession, he gets one foot back inbounds and the other foot is up in the air (never touched anything, but last touched oob)

his team mate passes the ball to him while he is in this position. (one foot up, one foot down inbounds)

I am still getting two different perspectives from fellow referees, but I do recall going over a case book play where the player was dribbling and inadvertently goes oob then comes back in, and with one foot in and established, he maintained dribble and was inbounds.


thank you for your reply, please cite rule/case book

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by socal

I am still getting two different perspectives from fellow referees . . .

There are referees who don't know 4-35-1,2 and 7-1 and 9-3-1 NOTE and those who do.

Best to pay attention to those who do.

Do those references seal it for you?

[socal]

Originally Posted by Freddy

There are referees who don't know 4-35-1,2 and 7-1 and 9-3-1 NOTE and those who do.

Best to pay attention to those who do.

Do those references seal it for you?

Thank you, 4-35-1/2 tells me that one foot inbounds is ok if the other foot isnt touching o.o.b. So you do not need 2 feet to touch inbounds prior to touching the ball in order to establish as being inbounds, and legally touching the ball.

Strange that so many officials I have spoken to, some long term officials, not knowing this rule.


Thank you for your replies.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by socal

Thank you, 4-35-1/2 tells me that one foot inbounds is ok if the other foot isnt touching o.o.b. So you do not need 2 feet to touch inbounds prior to touching the ball in order to establish as being inbounds, and legally touching the ball.

Strange that so many officials I have spoken to, some long term officials, not knowing this rule.

Thank you for your replies.

The more you study the rules the more you'll be amazed at the amount of "strange" conversations you will have with "veteran" officials.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The more you study the rules the more you'll be amazed at the amount of "strange" conversations you will have with "veteran" officials.

Ouch! Agreed though.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Ouch! Agreed though.

Seriously. I don't even discuss rules with local officials. I count maybe on 1 hand the number of HS refs here on the Peninsula who study the rules.

And a lot of college guys aren't much better. A couple of the guys who have helped me along are terrible when it comes to the rules quizzes we take, but at least they acknowledge it and know who to trust to get the right ruling. It's HS guys who sit there and argue with you without any basis from the rule book.

[grunewar]

BNR - Always room to improve. I work with many senior and more experienced officials who care and pride themselves on rules knowledge. That being said, I have had several "discussions" where I have sent an email when I got home quoting the reg (if I can't find it at the game - or they just don't want to wait and discuss at the game (preferred)).

If they're wrong I usually don't hear back.....

If I miss it, I'll cop to it.

Live and learn.

[JRutledge]

I cannot say it is that bad in my experience. Usually the stuff they do not know is often obscure or not often used rules. For example I had a veteran (who is a State Final official) tried to debate with me an intentional foul would get 2 shots always even on a 3 point shot. Well that is rather obscure and unusual rule for sure. But I do not see many veterans not knowing substitution rules or throw-in violation for 5 seconds. But I am often surprised what rules a veteran will argue like I mentioned earlier.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Seriously. I don't even discuss rules with local officials. I count maybe on 1 hand the number of HS refs here on the Peninsula who study the rules.

And a lot of college guys aren't much better. A couple of the guys who have helped me along are terrible when it comes to the rules quizzes we take, but at least they acknowledge it and know who to trust to get the right ruling. It's HS guys who sit there and argue with you without any basis from the rule book.

I've had some crazy discussions with some high level "seasoned" officials (whether a shot at the wrong basket should count if time expires while the ball is in the air, or whether an airborne player who catches the ball is allowed to land on his arse). I've had equally seasoned and respected partners call a player OOB for not having established two feet inbounds after being OOB. I won't say what city I was in when these happened to protect the guilty and the innocent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by socal

Strange that so many officials I have spoken to, some long term officials, not knowing this rule.

It will be far from the last time. And you'll find many very accomplished officials that really are very poor with the rules. They get by on charisma and salesmanship. And they make it harder for those that actually do it right.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It will be far from the last time. And you'll find many very accomplished officials that really are very poor with the rules. They get by on charisma and salesmanship. And they make it harder for those that actually do it right.

Or, as has been heard around here as attributed to a relatively veteran official, "Everything I know I learned on the court." Vis-a-vis, others are merely "rules geeks" who aren't really in touch with the game.
Avid rules knowledge and "feel for the game" need not be mutually exclusive.
Best to possess both attributes.

[rockchalk jhawk]

Originally Posted by socal

It says in this thread that if a player goes out of bounds, he can establish him/her self inbounds if no part of them self is out of bounds, therefore it only takes one foot that is inbounds.

The exact situation is, player is inbounds, dives to save the ball, the ball is saved and is bouncing inbounds, he slides out of bounds, gets back up, a team mate now has possession, he gets one foot back inbounds and the other foot is up in the air (never touched anything, but last touched oob)

his team mate passes the ball to him while he is in this position. (one foot up, one foot down inbounds)

I am still getting two different perspectives from fellow referees, but I do recall going over a case book play where the player was dribbling and inadvertently goes oob then comes back in, and with one foot in and established, he maintained dribble and was inbounds.


thank you for your reply, please cite rule/case book

The bottom line is this in the most simple terms possible... If you're touching in bounds and nothing is touching OOB, then you're legal. If you're in the air (jumping from point A to B) then your status is tied to wherever you last were (you are where you were until you get to where you're going). If you jump from OOB towards the playing area then you are OOB until some part of you touches in bounds (as long as nothing is still touching OOB).

I don't have rule references in front of me.

Interesting theoretical situation... Player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball with one foot in, one out. The player only dribbles the ball when the in bounds foot is touching or has established her as in bounds, but in between dribbles (the ball is not touching the hand or any part of the player) the other foot strides in the OOB area. This is splitting hairs, but isn't it technically... legal?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by rockchalk jhawk

Interesting theoretical situation... Player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball with one foot in, one out. The player only dribbles the ball when the in bounds foot is touching or has established her as in bounds, but in between dribbles (the ball is not touching the hand or any part of the player) the other foot strides in the OOB area. This is splitting hairs, but isn't it technically... legal?

No.

Cf. 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."

[rockchalk jhawk]

Originally Posted by Freddy

No.

Cf. 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."

Gotcha, thanks.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by socal

It says in this thread that if a player goes out of bounds, he can establish him/her self inbounds if no part of them self is out of bounds, therefore it only takes one foot that is inbounds.

The exact situation is, player is inbounds, dives to save the ball, the ball is saved and is bouncing inbounds, he slides out of bounds, gets back up, a team mate now has possession, he gets one foot back inbounds and the other foot is up in the air (never touched anything, but last touched oob)

his team mate passes the ball to him while he is in this position. (one foot up, one foot down inbounds)

I am still getting two different perspectives from fellow referees, but I do recall going over a case book play where the player was dribbling and inadvertently goes oob then comes back in, and with one foot in and established, he maintained dribble and was inbounds.


thank you for your reply, please cite rule/case book

It was legal 2.5 years ago, it's legal now, and it will be legal 2.5 years from now (well, unless the rule changes).