out of bounds rule.
 

player saves a ball.. goes out of bounds. comes back in and touches it. in the last 2 weeks we have had this called several ways..

1 game it was a violation
1 game it was not a violation
1 game it was a violation because the player did not touch with both feet.
1 game it was not a violation and the player never came back in and touched the ground before touching the ball.

i looked on several high sites and got various answers from officials. I see it answered differently on sites that have tests..

I finally ordered a rule book because so many mistakes are being made by officials in our games.

its clearly a violation under NCAA rules. what is the rule in HS and if its different why do we have 2 sets of rules on a play like this?

and while i am waiting for the rule book just how do you interpret the 3ft rule on out of bounds playing movement? is it 3 ft circle when handed the ball is it 3 ft either direction?

The HS rule is that a player that goes out of bounds after "saving a ball" can absolutely gain possession so long as he re-establishes himself inbounds, which means that no part of his body is touching out of bounds.

The quickest way a player will re-establish in bounds is two-fold: (1) to have the first foot back in bounds, and then (2) the instant that the second foot (that it still out of bounds) is raised from the out-of-bounds floor, he is now in bounds again.

Re: the in-bounding case, my provincial association says that it is 3 feet either direction.

1. It's not a violation under NCAA rules.
2. As long as something is touching in bounds and nothing is touching OOB, he has established position in bounds. Two feet are not required, although I've seen officials call it that way.
3. Bottom line, it's not a violation in high school as long as one foot (or something) touches in bounds (assuming nothing is currently touching OOB) before he touches the ball.

4. If you knew how the "3 foot rule" was worded, your question would answer itself.

Really? That makes a 6 foot spot.

No, it's not. It's clearly NOT a violation.

Same rule in HS and NCAA. If the player is inbounds, then s/he can touch the ball. It's ruled differently because (a) it might be different in the NBA; (b) it might be different in football and people attempt to apply that; (c) inexperienced refs might just apply some "myth" and not bother to read the rules; (d) apparently the rule can be confusing to read (based on your comment above -- and I don't mean that as a slam against you).

3 feet wide (parallel to the boundary line) and unlimited depth (back to the wall / bleachers).

That was the most recently interp that I've heard.

When you are handed the ball, who says that the "3 feet" extend to 1.5 feet either way. Why can't it work 3 feet to one way?

I see what you're saying. No, you don't get 3 feet either way. You can pick your direction, and go up to 3 feet in that direction. Then when you return, you can only go so far as the original spot. In other words, the thrower-in decides where his initial spot is laterally among the 3 feet.

Gotcha. Interesting, but the rule says the spot is determined by the official. That said, render runto Caesar....

As long as he/she keeps one foot on or above the original 3-foot box, yes. So if they had a gymnastics background (their name was Rerun) they could even do a splits during the throw-in.

It is not illegal. This isn't the NFL. ;)

I understand. I've order several coaching books and manuals, including "Coaching for Dummies, for the same reason.

No, it's not.

No, it is not a circle.

The thrower does not decide where his intial spot is.

The official designates the spot.

The spot is 3' wide.

As long as he keeps either foot on/over that spot, he may be able to move several 2-4 feet outside the spot with his second foot, in either direction.

so what does this mean>

Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under his/her own volition and then
becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court
has committed a violation.

The part in red is the key. A player whose momentum takes him OOB while saving the ball (or other similar activity) is not restricted by this rule. Basically, it's there for the player who decides to run OOB to get around defenders.

The NFHS (High School) equivalent is 9-3-3: The only difference is in the NFHS, it's a violation as soon as the player steps OOB. In NCAA, it's not a violation until the player becomes the first to touch the ball. But in both rule sets, it's not a violation if the player went OOB due to momentum from a legitimate play.

Right. Still, that's the thing that's always thrown me off about the article upprdeck posted. If you leave the floor for an unauthorized reason anyway, isn't that article moot?

What article? He posted the NCAA rule, where it's not a violation to leave the floor for an unauthorized reason. The violation is for, essentially, being the first to touch the ball after returning from leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. (paraphrased)

The article posted is from the NCAA rules, under "Penalties". As Snaqs posted, it is essentially the same play where in NFHS it is a violation immendiately for leaving the court voluntarily, it is only a violation in NCAA if that player is the first to touch or receive a pass after coming back in bounds.

There is also an A.R. (case play) that mentions what the NCAA considers as "voluntarily" leaving the court:

A.R. 168.

A1 deflects a pass near the end line. The ball falls to the floor inbounds but A1, who is off balance, falls outside the end line. A1 returns to the playing court, secures control of the ball, and dribbles.

RULING: Legal. A1 has not left the playing court voluntarily and was not in control of the ball when leaving the playing court. The same should be true when A1 makes a try from under the basket and momentum carries A1 off the playing court. The try is unsuccessful, and A1 comes onto the playing court and regains control of the ball.

(Rule 7-1-1, 4-46-1.a, 9-4-1 and 9-4-2)

Usually seen when a player runs OOB along the endline and then returns inbounds to receive a pass.

Call the violation just last Saturday.

So I guess the reason for my confusion is that I took saving a ball and going out of bounds to be voluntary and the rulebook is stating it is not. in my mind I have the choice of going out of bounds to save a ball. in this case if the ball and player are in bounds and I have no reason to step out and do then it is a violation?

however it also sounds like if I go out of bounds just to go around defenders who are in my way that it is a violation?

Correct. Important word for you to remember here is momentum. Did player go OOB because of momentum?

For completeness sake, the NBA's take on the play:

24. Player A1 saves a loose ball from going out-of-bounds by batting the ball back onto the playing court. May Player A1 be the first to touch the ball when he returns onto the court?

Yes. The batting of the ball does not constitute player control, therefore Player A1 may be the first to touch the ball.
RULE 10 - SECTION II - b

252. Team A has just lost control of the ball and it is in the air over the boundary line (never having touched out-of-bounds). Player A1 leaps from the playing court, bats the ball back into play and he then lands out-of bounds. What is the ruling?

This is a legal play by Player A1. The ball is not out-of-bounds until it touches someone or something that is out-of-bounds. On this play, Player A1 may also be the first to touch the ball once he touches inbounds with one foot and is not touching out-of-bounds. If Player A1 threw the ball back inbounds, he is not allowed to be the first player to touch the ball.
RULE 8 - SECTION I
RULE 10 - SECTION XIII - g

Interesting, is this rule saying that if he grabs it and throws it back in, he cannot be the first to touch it?

Rule 10, Section II

b. A player in control of a dribble who steps on or outside a boundary line, even though not touching the ball while on or outside that boundary line, shall not be allowed to return inbounds and continue his dribble. He may not even be the first player to touch the ball after he has re-established a position inbounds.

Rule 10, Section XIII
g. A player may not be the first to touch his own pass unless the ball touches his backboard, basket ring or another player.

The catch and throw in this case would be considered the first part of a dribble or a pass. NBA rules don't have an interrupted dribble provision like NFHS or NCAA.

Interesting, thanks.

Could a player, who has a long stride, have each foot outside the 3-foot spot on opposite sides (maybe 4-5 feet apart)...straddling the entire spot? :D

And would you call that a violation since neither foot was over the spot? ;) (No, I'm not saying you should, but that is what the rule, taken literally, would lead to).

From The Files Of The Mythbusters ...
 

A player inbounding the ball may step on, but not over the line. During a designated spot throwin, the player inbounding the ball must keep one foot on or over the three-foot wide designated spot. An inbounding player is allowed to jump or move one or both feet. A player inbounding the ball may move backward as far as the five-second time limit or space allows. If player moves outside the three-foot wide designated spot it is a violation, not travelling. In gymnasiums with limited space outside the sidelines and endlines, a defensive player may be asked to step back no more than three feet.

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.

still confused on this
 

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

Does This Help?
 

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?

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?

Theory Schmeary
 

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.

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).

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.

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.

What Color is This Year's Rule Book,Anyway?
 

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.

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.

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.

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

Unfortunately it is pretty bad right here in my immediate area at the moment. I enjoy going to camps and being able to have sustansive conversations about officiating.

or just coming to the Forum! ;)

It really is that bad....even on basic stuff...and not just here.

I see officials call block/charge wrong because they don't really know the rules of legal guarding. For example, calling a block on defender with clear LGP who takes one step backwards or leans backwards but still gets clobbered. Or calling a block on a moving defender because the defender wasn't "set" when both players were on the ground with contact solely in the torso.

I see officials call traveling wrong (both incorrect calls and incorrect no calls) because they don't understand the rules. For example, high dribbles, fumbles, muffs, etc. get called a travel/carry.

I see officials call violations on throwins because the don't know the rules....such as when the thrower moves their feet or jumps and lands with the ball.

I even see some of these incorrect calls in NCAA D1 games almost as much as I see them in HS games. All basic fundamental stuff that gets regularly missed.

Confucius Says ...
 

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

Yes, but nothing beats discussing a situation that just happened on the court.

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.

Agreed.

And the ball is dead after a made basket EVEN THOUGH THE CLOCK IS RUNNING.

But all this stuff you are mostly talking about, I see on this site mostly. I do not see these things being called in my actual games or games I witness live in my area on a regular basis. And I am not suggesting there are not rules mistakes, I see them often, but usually by younger officials or officials that are not at a certain level. And when more accomplished officials make those mistakes, it is usually rare.

Peace

It's a regional thing ;) It's most definitely a problem here. And I can identify the genesis of the whole problem in my area, but it's not something I want to get into on a public forum.

I just know when I'm in camp and interacting with officials from different places I'm envious of the type of officiating environment they have in their local areas.

this is a nice forum, but I'm still unclear on the out of bounds rule. please quote the rules language if you can and I'm curious about both the high school and men's college rule. I presume that if someone goes out of bounds and it is a basketball play and they were the last to touch the ball, they can get one foot back in and be the first to touch the ball. What if they were in control of the ball when they left the court? this is certainly a rule where a significant number of officials at the high school level are oblivious as to the proper interpretation. thanks, and again, if you can, please cite rule or case illustration and quote the language.

If a player is in control and touches OOB, the player has committed a violation. Note that there is no PC during an interrupted dribble.

What was the argument on intentional foul on a three? I want to make sure I'm applying that rule correctly. My situations have always been after a made bucket. Ive seen some veterans award two after the make and some only award one. Thanks in advance.

Unsuccessful 3 -- shoot 3.

Successful 3 -- shoot 2.

Unsuccessful 2 OR successful 2 -- shoot 2.

Thanks bob. That was my understanding but was making sure.