First to touch?
 

When a player saves the ball from going out of bounds, can he come back inbounds and touch it before anyone else touches it?
Can you give me the High School rule where it says you can or cant do this?
thanks.

If his momentum is what took him OOB and he did not voluntarily go out or gain an advantage by delaying his return to the court, yes he can be the first to touch.

Look at casebook 7.1.1 (or just look at the conversation here where it has already been discussed and Nevadaref so kindly posted the case).

thank you so much, that is exactly what I needed.

I just became a millionare! (I will not get paid of course)

Who did you bet and what are your backgrounds? Coaches, fans officials etc?

There is no situation in high school where it is a violation to be the first to touch the ball (other than the thrower on a throw in pass.)

Just to clarify: Going out voluntarily and delaying his return have nothing to do with touching the ball. These are infractions whether he touches the ball afterward or not. He can't touch the ball because it will already be dead.

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.

Did it actually hit "the other player's hands?"

While they do not have to do specifically with "touching the ball," they are still an aspect of the overall situation that must be looked at if/when this play takes place. Even the case play explicitly mentions the voluntary aspect. My memory is failing me at the moment though, what is the rule reference on the delayed return back inbounds infraction?

10-3-2: A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after being legally out of bounds.

technical foul

Thanks, was drawing a blank and seemed to keep looking right past it.

yes, actually through the hands, then the side of the head. :D

Ouch. He wouldn't be the first good official to misunderstand this particular rule.

That concerns throw-ins, not this situation.

10-3-2 does not distinguish between the thrower-in and any other player who is legally out of bounds.

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

Who You Gonna Call ???
 

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6230/6...473e048e_m.jpg

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.

Something in and nothing out
 

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.

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

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"?

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.

Ow, My Ears Hurt!!!
 

"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. :eek:

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. :o

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

So this forum/message board is NOT for opinions? Funny, I think I've read a few.

Huh?
 

:confused:

I have a questions on your questions.

Why is it an illegal dribble? He had not previously dribbled and it had been touched by another player.

Depends on what the OP meant by "knocked it back inbounds".

Most of the time (in my experience) that's not a dribble. So, gathering the ball (after the player comes inbounds) is not ending the dribble. So the "next" dribble is legal.

Still missing his point.

Some plays call for opinions.

Others, such as player location, are not subject to opinion. They're just too clear.

7.1.1 SITUATION D: A1 jumps from inbounds to retrieve an errant pass near a
boundary line. A1 catches the ball while in the air and tosses it back to the court.
A1 lands out of bounds and (a) is the first to touch the ball after returning
inbounds; (b) returns inbounds and immediately dribbles the ball; or (c) picks up
the ball after returning to the court and then begins a dribble. RULING: Legal in
Page 59 2011-12 NFHS Basketball Case Rule 7
(a) and (b). Illegal in (c) as the controlled toss of the ball to the court by A1 constitutes
the start of a dribble, dribbling a second time after picking up the ball is
an illegal dribble violation. (4-15-5; 4-15-6d; 4-35; 9-5)

Not enough information in the OP to say whether this case is applicable or not. If the player did not catch the ball, but rather just batted it back in, this would not constitute a dribble.

These others you see... ask them to return to officiating football, where their notions are correct.

Was I Right ???
 

You are where you are until you get where you're going.

In the NBA, a player may NOT be the first to touch the ball after going out of bounds if they are dribbling the ball or if they save the ball by controlling (throwing) it. If the player saves the ball by batting it, they MAY be the first to touch the ball.

That may be source of confusion for some officials and definitely a case where fans will think we rule a play incorrectly (much like a backcourt call with a defensive deflection even with the offense being the last to touch and first to touch).

The Mythbusters Thank You ...
 

Thanks APG. That may be the source of this NFHS "myth".

Being my first year I tagged along with 3 veteren officials Friday night for a learning experience. Player A1 chases down a long pass as he was cherry picking. He saves the ball from going out of bounds. Runs back in bounds and scoops it up dishing it to his teamate for the layup. The crowd went crazy.

While true, this does nothing to help answer the question asked -- did the player "get where (he was) going?"

100% of the time, the player gets where he was going. The question is ... was where we was going where he intended to go?

You're still missing the point. At what point do you verify what the rule book says, and not just get opinions from other officials?

And there is no "opinion" about player location in the example you cited. It's clearly defined in the rule book. So I'm bewildered as to why you choose opinions over the actual written rule. :confused:

He batted the ball back inbounds with one hand.

It gets a little better today.

He called me today and left me a voicemail : He believes that since his momementum didnt carry him out of bounds, that the right call was OOB.

I asked him two questions in an email that I havent heard back from him yet.

1) In that situation, what advantage was gained when he left the court and then returned?

2) A nine year old kid chasing a loose ball toward the line, does not constitute momentum?

I could give two hoots in georgia about the bet, this has happened two weeks in a row and 4 different officials missed this, I just want them to get it right.

What other questions can I ask that can shed the light? help me out fellas!

If he believes that he left the court on purpose, should that be a warning or a technical? I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that it should never be an OOB call, correct?

No, if he believed the kid left on purpose, that's a violation. No actual advantage required.

I agree that it is a violation, but not an OOB violation, correct?

This is a lot of hassle for a third/fourth grade basketball game, and a lot of expectation for the folks who actually put a whistle around their neck and give their time to ref.

No, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. The result is identical.

And this is the portion of your post to which I was responding:

Leaving the court on purpose is not a technical foul, and the only things that "should be a warning" are the four specified "Delay of Game" warnings. All other warnings are courtesies and should never be expected.

No hassle at all really. Their time is not given, they are paid.

The problem I have now, is two fold,

1) at the start of this whole discussion, this official had no idea that you could save the ball to yourself

2) after he found out that you could indeed do this, he is trying to defend the call that was made, using the word "momentum" as a crutch to do it.

Unfortunately, this is the mindset in my area, unapproachable and never wrong and never willing to learn the game.

For me now, it is all principle no hassle at all.

I highly doubt they're paid enough to go beyond covering their mileage expenses. To me, unless you're paying them upwards of $20 a game, they're giving their time.

At that level, you aren't getting (for the most part) varsity level officials any more than you're getting varsity level coaches. I'm not saying you're wrong on points one and two, but you really need to let the principle go. You've taught him the rule. Maybe it's not a horrible thing to just take that win and let him keep his pride rather than chase down a principle and ruin a friendship.

$20 a game, none of these officials travel more that 15 miles, this particular official does do varsity level games.

Here is the priciple - yes I agree with the win in teaching him a new rule, but it will be useless if it is not applied correctly. As is the case in my situation, now knows the rule, but chooses to mis-apply it, to fit the call that was made.

Friendly banter I promise, no friendship will be lost! I do appreciate the concern, and not sarcastically either!

Fair enough. Here's how I read the situation, take it for what you will.

You've shown him he was wrong, and he responded by justifying the call in hindsight. That doesn't mean he'll call it that way in the future; it means he's defending his call before. Nothing more. The fact is, this is an often misunderstood rule in basketball and he now knows the proper ruling.

If it was up to me, Billy's myth list would be pared down to about 5, and this would make the list.

There are a couple of guys that I work with that are like that. Whhen someone points out that they misapplied a rule, they try to twist things around to defend their position. We as officials represent the integrity of the game and when officials don't demonstrate integrity, it really bothers me. Admit you're wrong and learn from the experience.

If that's true, OOB was not the right call. Leaving the floor voluntarily was the right call. And we're shooting.

Shooting why?

Confused In Connecticut ???
 

Are you confusing the violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, with the technical foul for remaining out of bounds, and delaying a return inbounds, after a throwin pass is completed?