Out of Bounds (Please Help)

kentdl · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 15, 2003, 03:33pm

I'm sure I'm not loosing my mind. Years back at one of our association rules meetings I swear I remember this case study. Please bear with me and try to follow.

- Teams A and B are playing.
- Player on team A has the ball (live ball in play)
- Player on team B has established a position out of bounds.
- The player on team A with the ball throws the ball to or off of the player on team B described above.

In this scenario I SWEAR there is/was a case study stating the ball is out of bounds on team A and the ball belongs to team B. There is a judgement on the part of the official as to when the player established out of bounds position.

Anyone that could offer there opinion, a case or anything would be much appreciated. It has become a hot debate recently.

Thanks

Mark Padgett · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 15, 2003, 03:43pm

Here's my opinion. Whoever told you it would be team B's ball is nuts.

It doesn't matter if B1 was touching OOB when the ball hit him or if he was inbounds when the ball hit him and then the ball went OOB.

kentdl · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 15, 2003, 04:44pm

This was probably 6-7 years ago. I distinctly remember the man talking about the rule and had said it was the violation that was most commonly called wrong.

zebraman · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 15, 2003, 05:07pm

Was there heavy drinking at these past association meetings?
Z

Mark Padgett · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 15, 2003, 05:20pm

Oh yeah. I remember now. The guy who said the call was wrong was Professor Irwin Corey.

mdray · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 15, 2003, 06:18pm

see rule 7-2-1 & 7-2-2 for confirmation of the answers already posted

Nevadaref · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 15, 2003, 11:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by kentdl
This was probably 6-7 years ago. I distinctly remember the man talking about the rule and had said it was the violation that was most commonly called wrong.

He must have been talking about how he called it!

rainmaker · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 16, 2003, 12:18am

My guess would be that whoever said this was the rule was confusing the part about when the ball was officially out of bounds. It isn't out of bounds until it touches something that is out of bounds. Just crossing over the boundary line is not enough. I would expect that is where the confusion was when the person who originally said this was expounding.

My question would be, what difference does it make now? It's certainly NOT the rule now so WTH?