First to touch?

[rekent]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That concerns throw-ins, not this situation.

Case 7.1.1 B is the one I was talking about, and it is not throw-in.

[BillyMac]

If a player's momentum carries him or her off the court, he or she can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have left the court voluntarily and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

[letemplay]

Would this also apply to: A1 has advanced the ball into his frontcourt and turns to pass to A2 just coming across midcourt line. When he touches ball, A2 has one foot down in the frontcourt, nothing in backcourt. Is this considered position (FC) established?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Would this also apply to: A1 has advanced the ball into his frontcourt and turns to pass to A2 just coming across midcourt line. When he touches ball, A2 has one foot down in the frontcourt, nothing in backcourt. Is this considered position (FC) established?

Look up player location.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Would this also apply to: A1 has advanced the ball into his frontcourt and turns to pass to A2 just coming across midcourt line. When he touches ball, A2 has one foot down in the frontcourt, nothing in backcourt. Is this considered position (FC) established?

Why wouldn't it be? Has someone locally told you something that would make you doubt this?

[letemplay]

That is how I would rule it, but have seen others say both feet needed to be clearly down before touching.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

That is how I would rule it, but have seen others say both feet needed to be clearly down before touching.

Go by the rule book, not by others making statements like "both feet needed to be clearly down before touching".

Do you really think that somewhere is rule 4-35 it makes reference to "clearly down"?

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Go by the rule book, not by others making statements like "both feet needed to be clearly down before touching".

Do you really think that somewhere is rule 4-35 it makes reference to "clearly down"?

Do you really think there are not at least SOME refs out there every night that do not know ALL the rules, or some that view/interpret differently? Hence a forum such as this

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Do you really think there are not at least SOME refs out there every night that do not know ALL the rules, or some that view/interpret differently? Hence a forum such as this

Oh there are....but once you are able to sit down and discuss or type about it, you should have already consulted the rule book.

Also, listen to the words they said, "clearly down before touching". Does that sound like something they got from the rule book or something that just got passed down to them or they just made up on their own?

Player location doesn't fall under in the category of some obscure rule. That's something anybody past their 1st year of officiating should know by the rule book, not by hearsay, IMO.

[Freddy]

"Letemplay", please understand I don't mean to dis you with what I'm about to say, only use part of your post to make a point.

"That is how I would rule it, but have seen others say . . ."

This phraseology is the bane of officiating.

I hear this at a rules meeting and I outspokenly rebel vociferously without restraint in a near-out-of-control manner.

There. Vent over. I feel only slightly better.

[letemplay]

I'm not saying "they" are right and I also said I don't judge this play that way, just wanted to hear what others had to say. I see you agree with me.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by letemplay

I'm not saying "they" are right and I also said I don't judge this play that way, just wanted to hear what others had to say. I see you agree with me.

Yes, I do.
Thank you for taking my words in the kindest possible way.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

I'm not saying "they" are right and I also said I don't judge this play that way, just wanted to hear what others had to say. I see you agree with me.

I think you're missing my point.

This is something that is black-n-white within the rule book. Yes, during a game or in the locker room, you might get some mis-information. But once you've left the game and now get a chance to think about the rule, you're FIRST MOVE should be to the rule book, not asking for more opinions.

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Yes, I do.
Thank you for taking my words in the kindest possible way.

Ha I actually did not see your post before making my last...my response would have been similar...sometimes I either am not expressing myself accurately here or am misunderstood a bit..doesn't bother me as I generally don't get too worked up over much.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by bigda65

I coach youth ball, Ref rec games, mostly umpire baseball. I bet the referee (he is a good friend).

My kid threw the ball inbounds, and went through my other players hands, He chased it to the sideline and knocked it back inbounds, he stepped back on the court and started dribbling. He blew the whistle and called oob. I asked why, he said you couldnt do that, so I bet him a million that he could.

all friendly, no words as I said he is a good friend, and I thought a pretty good official.

I have a questions. When he came back onto the court was the ball bouncing and did he start dribbling. Or did he pick up the ball and start a dribble? If he picked up the ball and started to dribble it is an illegal dribble not an OB violation.