Sideline: Forced OOB

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by BayStateRef
Check out the Note under Rule 9-3.
"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."

This is not a close call. The girl, while dribbling, stepped out of bounds. That is an OOB violation. It does not matter if she was touching the ball at the time.

Not true. If the dribble was interrupted prior to her stepping OOB, it is not a violation.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Not true. If the dribble was interrupted prior to her stepping OOB, it is not a violation.

BBREF brings up the third situation I failed to mention. D player same position as previous. A1 looses dribble (int dribble/fumble what have you) trying to avoid defender. A1 gooes OOB around defender and recovers ball. Legal??? Acording to 9-5 it is a DD if she/he dribbles again. But what if she simply recovers the ball?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
A1 looses dribble (int dribble/fumble what have you) trying to avoid defender. A1 gooes OOB around defender and recovers ball. Legal??? Acording to 9-5 it is a DD if she/he dribbles again.

No, it isn't.
A fumble and an interrupted dribble are not the same thing, so you can't say "...what have you..."
There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.
There is player control during a dribble.
Just because the player re-establishes the dribble does not mean the interrupted dribble didn't happen.

This is not a double dribble or an OOB violation.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

No, it isn't.
A fumble and an interrupted dribble are not the same thing, so you can't say "...what have you..."
There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.
There is player control during a dribble.
Just because the player re-establishes the dribble does not mean the interrupted dribble didn't happen.

This is not a double dribble or an OOB violation.

I was stating that an int. dribble/fumble were the same for the purpose that player control is terminated. Thanks for the clarification that the two are not the same. I am not disputing the fact that the player can not cause the ball to be OOB during an int dribble. They cannot during a fumble for that matter. What I am asking is it legal for a player to have an interrupted dribble OR fumble, Go OOB around a defender in legal position and

A. recover the ball.
B. continue to dribble.

[BktBallRef]

He can recover the ball in either situation.

He can continue to dribble if it's an interrupted dribble.

He ccould not dribble again if the dribble had ended and he fumbled the ball, unless another player touched it first.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
He can recover the ball in either situation.

He can continue to dribble if it's an interrupted dribble.

He ccould not dribble again if the dribble had ended and he fumbled the ball, unless another player touched it first.

I agree to all above. The question I am still raising is the legality of the player to willingly go OOB to go around the defensive player to complete the above action.

That aside, agreeing that your statements above are true we now have to decide if the ball handler intentionally passed the ball or continued the dribble around the defender or whether it was an int dribble or a fumble. still w/ me???

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rocketpast
As a former player, current youth coach and varsity official - you have to give the defense a call in this situation. Either OOB or PC.

Disagree. I think my explanation above explains why. No disadvantage to the defender, then it can't be a PC. Ball never gets OOB status, then it can't be OOB. You can't make something up just b/c "the defender was there". The dribbler made a terrific play. Why is that so hard to accept?

Second, this is a Middle School game. If a player at this level gets him/herself into good defensive position, then they must be rewarded with a call if contact is made.

Again, disagree. A call must be made unless the contact is incidental. It sounds to me (without having seen the actual play) that the contact in the scenario is incidental.

Most kids at this age do not know how to 'take a charge' properly by flopping to the ground.

Flopping to the ground is not how to take a charge properly. Flopping will not get me to blow my whistle.

What happens when a 125 pound sophomore guard drives the lane and a 280 pound senior football player in shorts gets position? The little guy goes flying & the big guy doesn't flinch.

In this case, the defender was not disadvantaged. He is still in perfect position to play defense. No call. If the contact was violent in nature, then maybe you have something, but it still wouldn't be a PC, as you seem to advocate.

And, 'yes', the rule book does support you calling a PC foul in the original situation.

Again (surprise!! ), I disagree. If the contact was slight and did not disadvantage the defender (which, in our case, it did not), then the rulebook does NOT support calling a foul on the dribbler. The rulebook calls that incidental contact.

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Feb 5th, 2003 at 02:29 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
The question I am still raising is the legality of the player to willingly go OOB to go around the defensive player to complete the above action.

If the player intentionally goes OOB to decive his opponents, then call a T. Otherwise, don't try and enforce this rule just because a player goes OOB.

That aside, agreeing that your statements above are true we now have to decide if the ball handler intentionally passed the ball or continued the dribble around the defender or whether it was an int dribble or a fumble.

There you are, back to that word "fumble" again.

You don't have to know because it doesn't matter. The rule states, "An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler." It doesn't say anything about whether it has to be intentional or accidental. The simple fact is that the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. That's all that's required.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by RecRef
So in your eyes it is OK to force ones way through a "1 Foot" space, cause the contact which forces one OOB and not call a PC? If it is OK for you, so be it but it is not OK for me.

All I can do is ask you to re-read my post that you quoted. If the defender is not displaced or disadvantaged, it can't be a foul on the dribbler. If the defender is legally in the path of the dribbler, it can't be a blocking foul on the defender. If the ball never touched OOB, and the "dribbler" was not dribbling when she stepped OOB, then the ball can't be called OOB.

It doesn't matter if there's one foot or one inch of space on the sideline. If all of the above statements are true (and it sounds to me from Sven's post that they are), then you have no call to make. If you disagree, you disagree.

I'm running out of pennies now. I think that really was my last 2 cents. . .

Chuck

[rocketpast]

Chuck,

The original post & you stated "there is contact". Where in the book does it say that the contact must be violent or defender must be displaced for a PC to be called?

Player Control foul is to reward the defense for moving their feet, not for taking impact. Does not matter how slight or violent the contact is, by rule if contact is initiated by offense w/ball & defense in legal guarding position, then PC is the call. If the defender obtains legal guarding position & offense w/ball makes contact, there is no "incidental contact".

The situation outlined shows a great DEFENSIVE play not a great offensive move.

[Rich]

quote:

Flopping to the ground is not how to take a charge properly. Flopping will not get me to blow my whistle.

-----------------------------

It would cause me to blow my whistle. Any time a player obviously flops and there's ANY contact, I call a block.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rocketpast
If the defender obtains legal guarding position & offense w/ball makes contact, there is no "incidental contact".

So, even if both players are within their vertical plane, it's still a foul?

Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

Contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

Sorry to be blunt but anyone who advocates that they call a PC foul every time a player with the ball contacts a defender with position is full of crap. You don't do it and you know it. The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul.

[ChuckElias]

Ok, here is now officially, the last of my pennies:

Originally posted by rocketpast
The original post & you stated "there is contact". Where in the book does it say that the contact must be violent or defender must be displaced for a PC to be called?

I would recommend that you read the section titled "Incidental Contact" under Rule 4 of the Fed rulebook. Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.

The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul.

Contact which occurs unintentionally which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions should NOT be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal movements should be considered incidental.

I've edited the rule and made my own emphasis, but I think that Sven's situation falls in this category. Yes, there was contact. That doesn't mean it was a foul. The defender was still able to make normal defensive movements, so that's NOT a foul. The contact was unintentional and a result of players with equally advantageous positions, so it's NOT a foul.

I'm sorry if you think I'm beating a dead horse. But you keep asking the same question. The contact, as described by Sven, is -- in my OPINION -- incidental. If you choose to call a foul in that situation, FINE. But it would be a bad call.

Player Control foul is to reward the defense for moving their feet, not for taking impact.

WHAT?!?!?! Are you kidding? Hey that kid has great footwork on defense -- call the player control!! A PC foul is called when the defender gets to a spot first and the ballhandler makes contact on the defender's torso that puts the defender at a disadvantage. No impact, no PC.

Does not matter how slight or violent the contact is, by rule if contact is initiated by offense w/ball & defense in legal guarding position, then PC is the call.

Again, please read the definition of Incidental Contact. If you choose to call a ball game using the standards you just stated, you will have 3 hour games and no players left at the end.

If you still disagree with me, so be it. I'm outta pennies.

Chuck

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

If the player intentionally goes OOB to decive his opponents, then call a T. Otherwise, don't try and enforce this rule just because a player goes OOB.

There you are, back to that word "fumble" again.

You don't have to know because it doesn't matter. The rule states, "An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler." It doesn't say anything about whether it has to be intentional or accidental. The simple fact is that the ball momentarily gets away from the dribbler. That's all that's required.

So what we have here is that when a defensive player gains legal guarding position abutting the sideline (no room to go around without going OOB) the ball handler may go INTENTIONALLY go out of bounds to circumvent contact, return back in bounds and recover the ball or continue the dribble.

[Mregor]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref

This is exactly what I am driving at here. This happens in a HS varsity or college game, what do you have (NOT MS we have seperate rules for those) A defensive player gets good defensive position abutting the sideline and the dribbler pushes the ball around the defender goes around the defender OOB, returns inbounds and continues dribble.

Now that you say "continues to dribble", it OOB.

Mregor