Out of Bounds Violation Yes/No

habram

If a Player saves a ball from going out of bounds ,when can the player legally touch the ball again

Also if a player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball and loses it
then accidently goes out of bounds , when can the player legally touch the ball again

JRutledge

habram wrote
If a Player saves a ball from going out of bounds ,when can the player legally touch the ball again

When they have legally established themselves in bounds.

habram wrote
Also if a player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball and loses it
then accidently goes out of bounds , when can the player legally touch the ball again

Yes as long as they establish themselves in bounds.

There is no first to touch provisions in basketball.

Peace

Freddy

habram wrote
If a Player saves a ball from going out of bounds ,when can the player legally touch the ball again

Also if a player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball and loses it
then accidently goes out of bounds , when can the player legally touch the ball again

First Scenerio: As soon as that player establishes status on the court again, at least one foot touching the floor inbounds, for instance.

Second Scenerio: Sounds like an interrupted dribble (no longer player control), during which the player formerly known as "dribbler" may touch the ball again after establishing status on the court again (Different from the situation in 9-3-1 NOTE).

APG

habram wrote
If a Player saves a ball from going out of bounds ,when can the player legally touch the ball again

Also if a player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball and loses it
then accidently goes out of bounds , when can the player legally touch the ball again

Assuming NFHS rules:

A player can legally touch the ball when they're inbounds and nothing touching out of bounds. This is not the NFL where you have to get two feet back in to reestablish oneself.

If a player loses the ball and accidentally goes out of bounds, the player can legally touch the ball as soon as they return inbounds.

If you watch other levels of play, they have different rules about this (well at least the NBA does...not sure about NCAA).

bob jenkins

Freddy wrote
First Scenerio: As soon as that player establishes status on the court again, at least one foot touching the floor inbounds, for instance.

... and nothing touching OOB.

JRutledge

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Assuming NFHS rules:

If you watch other levels of play, they have different rules about this (well at least the NBA does...not sure about NCAA).

I believe the rule at the NCAA level is exactly the same, except they have a provision for running out of bounds to as an advantage and it is not a violation until they are the first one to get a pass. I am not sure if the rule is the same on both genders, but I will look it up to be sure.

Peace

Toren

habram wrote
If a Player saves a ball from going out of bounds ,when can the player legally touch the ball again

Also if a player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball and loses it
then accidently goes out of bounds , when can the player legally touch the ball again

One foot inbounds, nothing out of bounds = legal (is how I think of it).

One scenario to think about that is pretty rare but may happen: Player A had previously legally ended their dribble and somehow fumbled the ball and saves the ball, by throwing the ball to the floor inbounds. Player A then gets both feet back inbounds and is the first to catch the ball.

The referee has to judge whether the save was the start and the catch is the ending of a second dribble, which is of course a violation.

mbyron

Toren wrote
One foot inbounds, nothing out of bounds = legal (is how I think of it).

Need not be a foot: "something in, nothing out."

Toren

mbyron wrote
Need not be a foot: "something in, nothing out."

I'd like to see one hand in and feet in the air, like a nice break dancing move. 😀

But if we want to play semantics, "Nothing in as long as something is not out."

Camron Rust

Toren wrote
I'd like to see one hand in and feet in the air, like a nice break dancing move. 😀

But if we want to play semantics, "Nothing in as long as something is not out."

The point is entirely valid and not a semantic issue.

They could easily be on a knee, back, or belly after diving for the lose ball with neither foot touching the floor.

Toren

Camron Rust wrote
The point is entirely valid and not a semantic issue.

They could easily be on a knee, back, or belly after diving for the lose ball with neither foot touching the floor.

It is a semantics issue, because they could easily be completely off the floor with nothing in as long as nothing is touching or touched OOB prior to them being in the air.

Scrapper1

Toren wrote
It is a semantics issue, because they could easily be completely off the floor with nothing in as long as nothing is touching or touched OOB prior to them being in the air.

Don't confuse the issue. If the player is completely off the floor, then s/he is inbounds if s/he last touched the court inbounds. Simply being airborne, does not justify your claim that the player has "nothing in".

Toren

Scrapper1 wrote
Don't confuse the issue. If the player is completely off the floor, then s/he is inbounds if s/he last touched the court inbounds. Simply being airborne, does not justify your claim that the player has "nothing in".

I understand..."Something in, nothing out" is incomplete. Yet, we all seem to throw it around like it's the end all to the argument. My point is, think of it however you want, I think of the rule as "one foot in, nothing out." It helps me to remember. We all remember it differently.

So whatever helps the person remember that as long as nothing is out, then you are in.

BktBallRef

habram wrote
If a Player saves a ball from going out of bounds ,when can the player legally touch the ball again

Also if a player is running down the sideline dribbling the ball and loses it
then accidently goes out of bounds , when can the player legally touch the ball again

Read 7-1-1 and the case plays under 7.1.1.

BillyMac

Camron Rust wrote
They could easily be on a knee, back, or belly after diving for the lose ball with neither foot touching the floor.

Ponytail.

bob jenkins

Toren wrote
I understand..."Something in, nothing out" is incomplete. Yet, we all seem to throw it around like it's the end all to the argument. My point is, think of it however you want, I think of the rule as "one foot in, nothing out." It helps me to remember. We all remember it differently.

So whatever helps the person remember that as long as nothing is out, then you are in.

I just read 4-playerlocation and then I don't have to try the "sayings that are right most of the time but might not be right all of the time."

Adam

Toren wrote
I understand..."Something in, nothing out" is incomplete. Yet, we all seem to throw it around like it's the end all to the argument. My point is, think of it however you want, I think of the rule as "one foot in, nothing out." It helps me to remember. We all remember it differently.

So whatever helps the person remember that as long as nothing is out, then you are in.

How is it incomplete? What scenario isn't covered?

Toren

Snaqwells wrote
How is it incomplete? What scenario isn't covered?

An airborne player who saves the ball. He would not have something in, as he is airborne. Thus, incomplete.

Adam

Toren wrote
An airborne player who saves the ball. He would not have something in, as he is airborne. Thus, incomplete.

Being airborne means his location is defines by his last contact with the floor, which is in bounds as long as something was in and nothing was out.

Freddy

BillyMac wrote
Ponytail.

Since everybody seems to be in such a pleasant "this happened to me yesterday" mood . . .

Saturday...about three feet from the coach standing in her box...her JV girl gained possession of the ball while on her back with everything inbounds...except for...PONYTAIL.

Coach: 😮, then 😠, then 🙁, then 😮, then 🙂, then 😀 . . . as the reality of the situation set in.

Now, if that player followed the hairstyle trend I do, she wouldn't have had that call for a violation. 😛