I've seen this one twice in the last week and
yes by different teams. A1 is inbounding ball
in back court btw mid court and foul line extended. A2 starts on the court and then runs around A1 and back on to the court after crossing the division line. This play is obviously confusing to the defense.
Now when A1 passed it to A2 (who was now inbounds) I called it a violation because A2 can not be the 1st to touch the ball after he ran out of bounds). But I do recall someone once saying something about a Technical for delay of game or something. My partner and I left it as a nocall when they passed it to A3. Any comments ???

NO violation. A player may be the 1st to touch the ball unless he had player control prior to going oob. Maybe a T for leaving the court. At the very least i would tell them not to do it again. If they do then it is a T.

The NFHS rules state that if a player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason then it is a "T".

My "COMMON SENSE" rule states that if a player gains an advantage by intentionally going out of bounds, then call a violation. Explain to the player/coach what the call REALLY should have been and I don't think you'll get any argument from either of them, especially if they know the rules.

Heck, they might just be trying to see how much you really know.

I had a situation whereby in a girls varsity game B1 was guarding A1 in the backcourt, near the sideline. A1 tried to avoid contact by running out of bounds on B1's right side. She dribbled the ball towards B1's left side, and in doing so, B1 touched the ball.

A1 promptly returned inbounds and chased the ball down. B1 was left standing, expecting to get a Charge call.

I called a violation, and the coach went ballistic. During a deadball situation, I explained the rule to him and he said he never knew there was such a rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>
I called a violation, and the coach went ballistic. During a deadball situation, I explained the rule to him and he said he never knew there was such a rule.

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


WHAT!!!! A coach admitting he didn't know a rule!!! Yeah - and a pig just flew by my window!!! http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

I think i would have to see the play. I can't see myself calling a violation for a player trying to avoid contact.

Now thats an interesting scenario Leggs45. Am just starting to ref but it seems to me that A1 connceivably could have gained a clear advantage by leaving the court. The fact that B1 touched the ball muddies the waters regarding player control but I agree that the play should not have been allowed to continue

Yeah HARPER, if B1 had not touched the ball then A1 would have been the 1st to touch the ball after going out-of-bounds and so, I would have had to give the ball to Team B.

It's not a play you'll see happen quite often and when you do I hope you remember this email thread.

I try to always incorporate advantage-disadvantage into my game. It always seems to help when I'm not 100% sure of a situation.

I just had a humorous thought - How about if A2 goes out the gym door and then returns through the other door onto the court? Would defender follow him? Same thing though. Amazing what coaches will do. When I coached CYO I had an inbounds play at the same place on the court that always worked and unlike this one was legal. A1 would pass the ball into A2 and then come inbounds and make run to basket along side line around pick set by A3. A2 would pass to the cutting A1 for the bucket. Defensive team always forgot about where the inbounder was.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leggs45:
Yeah HARPER, if B1 had not touched the ball then A1 would have been the 1st to touch the ball after going out-of-bounds and so, I would have had to give the ball to Team B.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh. It's NOT a violation to be the first to touch the ball after going out of bounds. This myth is so pervasive that it was even a POE in last year's rule book.

The violation is for a player in control (A1 was dribbling) touching out of bounds. The violation occurs, and the whistle should sound, as soon as A1 touches the line or outside the line -- even if A1 is not touching the ball at that time.

Of course, if there's an interrupted dribble, there's no player control, so A1 has not violated if s/he touches out of bounds during this interrupted dribble.

Bob -

I believe we know that. But there was earlier discussion about T for gaining advantage by going out of bounds. Can someone shed some light on that?

By the NFHS rules, any player leaving the court and returning to gain an advantage is given a T.

Since most people don't know the consequences of leaving the court to gain an advantage (this includes players and coaches and fans), you have a choice to make: follow the rules exactly (call a T) or call a violation and warn the team.

IMHO, the T is too harsh and the first violation of this rule should be a violation and a team warning. Subsequent acts by the same team should be T'd. I know, some people out there feel that the rules should be followed exactly, but I could never see myself calling a T in this situation (especially in a tight game going down to the wire).

Cheers!

David -

Thanks. This is tricky. Would have to blow whistle before ball was inbounded in order for me to issue warning. I might not catch it fast enough so I would probably T up team A. Nullify basket if A scores.

David -

You are not giving coaches enough credit. They are slyer than you think.............

Dr C -

If you have seen this happen more than once, in your next pregame, speak to both coaches and let them know it is a T if they do that. Good game management.

I just read through this thread quickly for the first time, so please pardon my late 2 cents worth. Responding to the situation mentioned in the original post, and a few others that were related, I have to disagree with calling a violation. It simply is not a violation according to the book, and I personally don't believe we should "turn it into" a violation because we don't think the action warrants a technical. If one chooses to NOT blow the whistle on it, then warn the team not to do it again and issue a "T" the next time. Better to ignore and warn in this situation than to call it something it clearly is not. At the same time, the tactic seems to me to be clearly designed to gain an advantage, so one would probably be quite justified in calling a "T" right away. But the bottom line is that we can't (or at least shouldn't) make up our own call because we don't like the one prescribed in the book.