Momentum OB

[Amesman]

Off-season rant from the coach in me ... Coaching my kid's championship game in Saturday rec league (middle school division).

Question about a momentum-OB call early in the game. From division line, we inbounded deep to the back court (no press rule) and one of the kids had to dash back extra hard, took a couple of dribbles, momentum carried him OB off the endline and he returned (feet inbounds) to resume dribble of bouncing ball.

Inexperienced ref at trail tweeted, raised his hand, pointed to the endline, then made some feeble travel motion as well. I shouted something to the effect of, "He can do that!" and then the condescension came from the other, more experienced ref who had moved up as the new trail: "We have our whistles for a reason coach. Let us do our job. Someone else has to touch it first."

I don't like pulling the "I'm patched, too" card so I didn't and tried (calmly and to just the vet) explaining that someone else did not have to touch it, momentum, etc. He held his ground (also quietly and calmly) even after I tried to explain a bit more and then told him I was patched, too. I eventually ended with, "We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one" and left it at that, on respectful terms.

We wound up being flat and getting waxed after a couple playing a couple of great games earlier, so no big deal. But I wanted to confirm I was right: The vet is a good ref but I think he was wrong on this one (not sure if he knew -- didn't sound like it -- or just wasn't throwing partner under the bus).

Or was I wrong? Looking under 7.1 really only addresses tipping a ball and then coming back on the court to gain possession. I thought if momentum takes you off, even after starting a dribble, you can come back and resume, as long as you're on the court and didn't stop the dribble. Am I kicking it?

[Welpe]

This is going to be one of two things, either an OOB violation if the dribbler was deemed to still be in control or an interrupted dribble and if that is the case, then it is nothing as long as your player had in bounds status when he touched the ball.

It's hard to tell from not seeing it and your description but it sound like it was an interrupted dribble to me.

[Adam]

Let's just say this wouldn't be the first vet I've seen get this rule wrong; and it's usually impossible to get through to them.

I've had them make the "first to touch" call. I've had them make the call and claim the player needed to get both feet down in bounds before he could touch it.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let's just say this wouldn't be the first vet I've seen get this rule wrong; and it's usually impossible to get through to them.

I've had them make the "first to touch" call. I've had them make the call and claim the player needed to get both feet down in bounds before he could touch it.

Sadly, things can be incorrect in the most uncharacteristic places. Viewed a girls hs regional game last week where the seemingly veteran official called a "travel" on a girl on a sideline OB play , then compounded his error by saying, right in front of the bench, "You can't move your feet during an in-bounds..."
Didn't affect the outcome of the game, but one can only be gratified it didn't get called with the game tied and five seconds to go...

[Mark Padgett]

Amesman - I think you were OK in your discussion with the ref as long as you didn't bite his ear (see other posts).

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Off-season rant from the coach in me ... Coaching my kid's championship game in Saturday rec league (middle school division).

Question about a momentum-OB call early in the game. From division line, we inbounded deep to the back court (no press rule) and one of the kids had to dash back extra hard, took a couple of dribbles, momentum carried him OB off the endline and he returned (feet inbounds) to resume dribble of bouncing ball.

If the inbounds pass to A2 was never under A2's control before A2 went OB, then there should not have been a 10-second count started, and A2 going establishing possession inbounds, after being OB, is legal.

If the dribbles as bolded above were deemed to have been in A2's control, then a 10-second count should have been started, and A2 may not go OB, let alone back inbounds.

If the dribbles as bolded above were deemed to have been in A2's control, and then no longer in A2's control, and therefore, an interrupted dribble, then a 10-second count should have been started, continued, and A2 MAY go OB, and back inbounds to gather the ball for continued play.

It all comes down to a judgement call by the covering official.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If the inbounds pass to A2 was never under A2's control before A2 went OB, then there should not have been a 10-second count started, and A2 going establishing possession inbounds, after being OB, is legal.

If the dribbles as bolded above were deemed to have been in A2's control, then a 10-second count should have been started, and A2 may not go OB, let alone back inbounds.

If the dribbles as bolded above were deemed to have been NOT in A2's control, and therefore, an interrupted dribble, then a 10-second count should have been started, continued, and A2 MAY go OB, and back inbounds to gather the ball for continued play.

It all comes down to a judgement call by the covering official.

All true, but none of this justifies the statement that someone else needed to be the first to touch the ball.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Off-season rant from the coach in me ... Coaching my kid's championship game in Saturday rec league (middle school division).

Question about a momentum-OB call early in the game. From division line, we inbounded deep to the back court (no press rule) and one of the kids had to dash back extra hard, took a couple of dribbles, momentum carried him OB off the endline and he returned (feet inbounds) to resume dribble of bouncing ball.
Inexperienced ref at trail tweeted, raised his hand, pointed to the endline, then made some feeble travel motion as well. I shouted something to the effect of, "He can do that!" and then the condescension came from the other, more experienced ref who had moved up as the new trail: "We have our whistles for a reason coach. Let us do our job. Someone else has to touch it first."

I don't like pulling the "I'm patched, too" card so I didn't and tried (calmly and to just the vet) explaining that someone else did not have to touch it, momentum, etc. He held his ground (also quietly and calmly) even after I tried to explain a bit more and then told him I was patched, too. I eventually ended with, "We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one" and left it at that, on respectful terms.

We wound up being flat and getting waxed after a couple playing a couple of great games earlier, so no big deal. But I wanted to confirm I was right: The vet is a good ref but I think he was wrong on this one (not sure if he knew -- didn't sound like it -- or just wasn't throwing partner under the bus).

Or was I wrong? Looking under 7.1 really only addresses tipping a ball and then coming back on the court to gain possession. I thought if momentum takes you off, even after starting a dribble, you can come back and resume, as long as you're on the court and didn't stop the dribble. Am I kicking it?

OB to me. Whats the difference if he was dribbling up sideline and did the same thing? As I believe snaqs said, if no control, a no call

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

OB to me. Whats the difference if he was dribbling up sideline and did the same thing? As I believe snaqs said, if no control, a no call

Agreed, if a dribbler steps OOB, then it doesn't matter whether he's the first to touch the ball or not, it's OOB. It's the first to touch implication that drives me crazy.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

All true, but none of this justifies the statement that someone else needed to be the first to touch the ball.

I agree that the T's quote is incorrect, but a violation may have been the correct call, just for the wrong reason.

An interesting follow-up, is would a L confer with the T to see if the call should be ruled as an IW. If it's a newbie as T, I might consider it.

[tref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I agree that the T's quote is incorrect, but a violation may have been the correct call, just for the wrong reason.

An interesting follow-up, is would a L confer with the T to see if the call should be ruled as an IW. If it's a newbie as T, I might consider it.

Confer? Help? Dont get em started

[Amesman]

Good points, all. Thanks.

In my estimation, my young guy raced to track down the ball that was heading OB, took a few dribbles (in control) yet couldn't stop his body from going OB so left the ball to do its thing while his body continued OB, stopped and came back to continue dribbling the ball -- never touching ball and OB simultaneously. There was no catching of it or turning it over with the palm, either, which was pretty skillful for this age.

I would have judged he had control with the two dribbles, just couldn't help himself from going OB. Not sure where that leaves it with JAR's last two possibilities (he had control of the ball, then didn't ...). Recognize the likely HTBT factor ...

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Good points, all. Thanks.

In my estimation, my young guy raced to track down the ball that was heading OB, took a few dribbles (in control) yet couldn't stop his body from going OB so left the ball to do its thing while his body continued OB, stopped and came back to continue dribbling the ball -- never touching ball and OB simultaneously. There was no catching of it or turning it over with the palm, either, which was pretty skillful for this age.

I would have judged he had control with the two dribbles, just couldn't help himself from going OB. Not sure where that leaves it with JAR's last two possibilities (he had control of the ball, then didn't ...). Recognize the likely HTBT factor ...

If you judge he had control of the dribble, then the second that he steps OB, whether by misjudgement of where the playing boundaries are, or by momentum, or other reason, it is a violation. That his hand wasn't at the time in contact with the ball is irrelevant.

The T shouldn't have said that someone else has to touch the ball.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Good points, all. Thanks.

In my estimation, my young guy raced to track down the ball that was heading OB, took a few dribbles (in control) yet couldn't stop his body from going OB so left the ball to do its thing while his body continued OB

This sounds like an interrupted dribble.

I would have judged he had control with the two dribbles, just couldn't help himself from going OB. Not sure where that leaves it with JAR's last two possibilities (he had control of the ball, then didn't ...). Recognize the likely HTBT factor ...

This does not.

HTBT I guess.

[just another ref]

In the OP, my first thought is that it wasn't a dribble. It seems unlikely that the kid sprinted back and gained control but was unable to control himself enough to stay inbounds.