Momentum OB

[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.

[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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sure it does, his momentum would either have him travelling by grabbing ball and taking steps or as he decided to do......dribble. He then says whoa I can't dribble OOB, so I'll leave ball here only to return when he has control of himself

I can't believe there is even a discussion on what this is. Any other situation at any other area on the court and you have an easy travel(edit......OOB)

Think of dribbler on a fast break who leaves ball near basket as he can't stop only to run OOB, return to court grab ball and lay it in.......huh?

What it seems a few are saying is there are no court boundaries