What happens in the case where A1 steps on the shoe of B1. The shoe comes off B1 but A1 is still on the shoe and the shoe is touching OOB. Is the shoe a part of the player still or is it now an object and thus A1 is OOB.

You're jking, right?!?

7-1 ...A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary.

Based on the above, I would have to say that yes the player is OOB. While this is a far-fetched senario, it highlights the importance of keeping objects off the playing floor. For example, if a towel is dropped in front of the team bench and is half in the court and half out, it would seem that a player stepping on the in bounds part of the towel would have to be considered OOB.

maybe the coaches out there will start teaching their kids to jump out of their shoes in this situation

:D

I disagree. First, if I see the towel, I'll kill the play anyway. Now if the player stepped on the part of the towel that was OOB, I would whistle the violation. But just because a towel is across the boundary line and the player touches it inbounds is no reason to penalize the player. Kill the play and get the towel off the floor.

If a coach stuck his hand out and touched a player who was otherwise obviously inbounds, would you call him OOB?

You are going to what?
 

I cannot even believe you are discussing with with any seriousness.

Peace

Tony, You can disagree all you want. All I did was quote the rule and it seems very clear. For the coach senario, if the player touches the coach it is OOB, if the coach touches the player and is not trying to catch him or stop him from being hurt, I think it has to be a technical foul.

I agree with Tony
 

I would blow my whistle - not for the violation, but to get an object off the floor that came into play. If the play continued without touching the towel/shoe, I would NOT stop play, but allow sideline personnel to reach out and clean it up. I would only blow the whistle if I felt the object came into play - and then to get it cleaned up (stepping on the object obviously brings it into play). I want to prevent an injury of a twisted or broken ankle.

You can think all you want. But can you cite a rule or case play?

Like any other rule, the OOB rule was written with a "spirit and intent" in mind.The intent obviously was to penalize players with the ball for not remaining in the playing area.If you were to apply a completely literal interpretation to this rule,you could come up with some absolutely ludicrous calls.A1 is dribbling in front of the B bench. A B substitute drops a towel,half in/half off the court,in front of A1.A1 now steps on the towel. TWEET! OOB's and we got B's ball! Also,imagine a fan throwing a popcorn box at a player with the ball,and hitting him. TWEET! You now have to call that player OOB and give the other team the ball, as per Nevada's strict interpretation of the rule. You do have a player in this case touching an object that is OOB; the popcorn box is OOB because it came from OOB and never touched in bounds.

I would surely like to be there there to see someone call these plays the way Nevada suggests.

On second thought,I wouldn't want to be there.

You can probably stretch R10-4-2, and say that the coach "entered the court" when he reached in bounds and touched a player.Again though,there's still the "spirit and intent" of the rule that should determine your call,or non-call(hopefully :D).

As usual, JR, you have taken the situation and twisted it to fit what you want to say or to allow you to criticize someone. In this case you have taken the play where an object is lying on a boundary line, presumably through no one's fault, and a player touches it; (The rule clearly states this is OOB.) and changed it into a situation where an opposing player (or fan) takes action which would cause the violation. This is a world of difference. In both cases the play should be stopped and appropriate measures should be taken against the person who threw an object onto the playing floor, whether this punishment is a technical foul or removal from the gym depends on who did what.
Hopefully, you can see the difference between someone throwing something onto the floor and an object being left on the floor, such as a cheerleaders pom-pom after a halftime show, and the officials not noticing it until it becomes part of the play.
And yes, in the second situation, I would strictly enforce the rule.

Hopefully, you can see the difference between someone throwing something onto the floor and an object being left on the floor, such as a cheerleaders pom-pom after a halftime show, and the officials not noticing it until it becomes part of the play.
<B>And yes, in the second situation, I would strictly enforce the rule.</B> [/B][/QUOTE] Specific situation,as above,Nevada:
Team A is down 1 with 10 seconds to go and sets up for the last shot after a TO. A1 dribbles in front of B's bench on the way up court. A1 now steps on the in-bounds part of a towel that was left lying half-on and half off of the court in front of B's bench by a B player. You're telling me that you would call a violation on A1 now for being OOB? Or if a B cheerleader left her pompom on the floor,and A1 then stepped on the in-bound part of it, you would again call A1 for being OOB, and give B the ball?

Nothing personal,Nevada,but those calls lack common sense, IMHO.

gotta agree with Rut and JR on this. I can't believe you are discussing this and the spirit of the rule did not include towels and shoes.

I'd call a flagrant T on the towel and through the thing outta the gym.

I would drench him in a large mud pile and then use a cheap, cut-rate detergent to wash him. He'd beg for Tide, but I would refuse.

Mike

Its a flagrant T. . .
 

on jking for starting us down this path in the first place ;)

Nevada, gotta go with the rest on this one. Can't see how you would make that call against A, regardless of the book. I think the towel has some elastic sewn into it.

IMHO, the rules regarding touching OOB objects were written with the assumption the objects would be in their normal state...completely OOB....chairs, walls, tables, etc. As such, I'm declaring that the part any object which is on the floor inbounds is part of the floor under it...as if the object weren't there. There is no way I would call a violation when a player steps on towel that partly inbounds and partly OOB unless the location of the step would have otherwise been OOB.

Assuming you haven't beckoned the towel onto the floor, it is still considered bench personnel. Therefore, the head coach receives and indirect T, loses his coaching box priviledges, and could be ejected. :D

One more sticky issue, can you legally throw it out of the gym without ensuring it has adult supervision?

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Sep 3rd, 2003 at 11:39 AM]

Juulie, I'm ashamed to say that it took me two weeks to notice this joke, but it's a darn good one! :)

Don't need to worry about telling you a joke on Saturday night, eh?

Unfortunately, common sense does not always win out. In my opinion this is one of those goofy situations, which if you are silly enough to get yourself into, you have to follow the rules book to the letter to get out of.
To answer your question, yes, OOB and team B gets the ball.
Now back up fifteen seconds and ask why this happened. It was the officials' fault for not taking a quick look around the floor before putting the ball back into play following the TO. Just simple preventative officiating that we should all do, and can help us avoid many trouble situations.

For example, if I may give you a return senario: Team A is down 1 with 10 seconds to go and sets up for the last shot after a TO. The official mistakenly administers the throw-in to a member of Team B, who quickly passes the ball into the court to a teammate. What do you rule? The common sense way: kill the play and readminister the throw-in to Team A, or the by-the-book sorry it's too late to fix it so continue playing.
See my point? If we are not diligent and make an error which puts us in such a situation, we must then follow what is written in the rules, afterall that is why they are there. Some say the rules aren't fair; so change them. But is it any more fair to not follow them?

No one said anything about how the towel got there. Perhaps it was dropped there after the ball was live. Has nothing to do with being the official's fault for not clearing it away.

Agreed, but the rule on objects out-of-bounds is making the assumption that the object is actually out-of-bounds. If you take your point to the extreme, the player is OOB anytime there foot touches the floor if the finish on the floor spans the OOB line. An object on the floor, is located in the same place as the floor below it. An object that is entirely OOB is OOB. An object that is entirely inbounds is inbounds. An object that is bridgeing the line has each part the same as the floor below it.

The intent of the OOB rule is to keep the players within a defined space that is the same for both teams. The rule about touching an OOB oject is to prevent a player with the ball who is falling from touching a chair, wall, or some such object to keep their balance. To call a violation on a player who steps/touches a foreign object when the action would have normally been within the boundary is not supported by the spirit and intent of the OOB rules...and arguably not even by the letter of the rule.

If you want to really get technical about it all, a player can never touch the object or OOB. At the atomic level, there is ALWAYS space between the atoms of the players body or clothing and any other object (unless they are capable of spontaneous cold fusion). Therefor, by the laws of physics, there can never be an OOB violation, nor a legal throw-in, jump ball, foul, etc.

Camron
Thanks for a much more lucid description of the problem than any of us previously provided. This is quite different than the rule Nevada cited about giving the ball to the wrong team - ther is a way to deal with it, and it doesn't seem fair but it is a clear rule.

This is a different case. The object OOB rule exists so that you do not have to touch just the floor OOB, but the bleachers, a chair, etc. It does not exist to cover the towel on the floor situation. However, there is still the case of the unshod player's shoe. . .

Isn't it interesting that the laws of physics do not preclude most technical fouls?

If you want to really get technical about it all, a player can never touch the object or OOB. At the atomic level, there is ALWAYS space between the atoms of the players body or clothing and any other object (unless they are capable of spontaneous cold fusion). Therefor, by the laws of physics, there can never be an OOB violation, nor a legal throw-in, jump ball, foul, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]I agree!
http://www.uselessgraphics.com/cel65.gif

I look at the rule as objects that are normally OOB at the start of the game ie chairs, bleachers, tables etc. If I see a towel on the floor I consider that a hazard if it is in the path of a player. I blow my whistle stop the play. Give the ball back to the team that had possession of the ball prior to the whistle. As far as the shoe. If it half in and half out when it is off the player. It should have been half in and out on the player. Should have been blown dead then! But guess I could be wrong there also!

AK ref SE

Sorry, Cam, but we already covered this: see my post 9-2 at 8:06PM, also JR and I have been very clear that the towel or pom-pom was inadvertently left on the boundary line during a TO.


This statement is totally untrue. Please re-read the rule carefully.

7-1 ...A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player, on or outside a boundary.

Notice that it quite clearly says ON OR OUTSIDE. This means that just like a player who has one foot inbounds and one foot OOB, an object which is touching both inbounds and OOB is to be considered OOB.
Certainly true, but it seems to cover even more because of the specific language used.
This is by far your best argument. I just feel that I loses out to "the letter of the rule."
How do you know? I concur that 99% of the time the rule is used to stop a player from touching an object or fan which is completely OOB in a way which would provide that player an advantage, but the wording of the rule is clear and specific enough to cover the wacky situations too. If you go with the plain language of the rule, it covers the towel, pom-pom, and the unshod shoe! Something to think about.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION
 

I am calling a JV boys basketball game. Score is tied with less than 40 sec's left. A1 has the ball and is getting no pressure bringing up the ball in the back court. A1 who has stopped next to the coach for instruction, but contuines his dribble, A1 is patted on the rear by the coach who is standing out of bounds. I call out of bounds on A1. Was this the correct call.

Sorry, but the atomic level has nothing to do with it.

It is at the molecular level where we see that not only is the player out-of-bounds for standing on the towel but the out-of-bounds is now inbounds and the inbounds is now out-of-bounds. This is through a process known as molecular migration where the molecules of contacting objects flow between each other and collide when doing so.

While this is all said tongue in cheek when it comes to basketball, molecular migration is a very serious problem in some areas. A few years back the Red Cross had to destroy a large quantity of blood because the bags being used at that time were contaminating the blood through migration.

Because you only need to be over the designated spot not on it, I think this interp is wrong. You can make a legal throw-in without having physical contact with the spot. :)

Re: FOLLOW UP QUESTION
 

Nope,you should have T'd the coach for entering the court without permission(R10-4-2)!

Clay,ask yourself this: Did the coach gain any advantage by patting his player on the butt? Was the other team placed at any kind of disadvantage by the coach's act? Could you call the coach's action an unsportsmanlike act? Was the coach seat-belted or flagrantly out of his coach's box when he gave his player the pat? I think that you might have a hard time answering "yes" to any of those questions! If you can't answer "yes",why make a call on something that had absolutely no affect on the game?

This is what we were talking about before about the "spirit and intent" of a rule. You might be able to stretch the language to fit a situation, but is that really what the rulesmakers intended when they wrote the rule? In this case, IMO the most that you might do is maybe mention to the coach,when you get a chance,that it might be a good idea not to touch anyone on the court. You might even take the time and explain why. As for actually calling anything-OOB,T,etc.- I really don't think that a call should be made.

But the throw will not be touched by the receiving player. So, you could never start the clock. ;)

The game would last forever!

Piling on :)
 

There is a principle called The Law of Least Astonishment that helps me in cases like these described in this thread. When faced with a decision about something outside the norm, do the thing that will least astonish the participants.

IMO, if you make the OOB call in this unusual situation, you will have disrupted the natural flow of the game by making a call that nobody expected that penalizes a player/team who did not violate any obvious rule. That's pretty astonishing!

Even if you can back it up by the book, even if you can sell it, did the call make the game better? Did it penalize an illegally gained advantage? Or did it merely draw attention to the official, and his knowledge of the rules?

I have to go back to college to officiate basketball this year. I have not taken a physics, molecular science or was it atomic science in many years, so my question is: can I officiate if I am IN school during the season, or do I have to be total OUT?

AK ref SE

College? That's a pretty stiff requirement. Down here we just have to take the test :)

Uh, Clay, I know you are trying to make a point in a rather silly way, but you are a day late and a dollar short on this one. Look at my earlier post from the first page of this thread where Tony and I already dealt with this issue.
Now while it was understood from our conversation that the player and coach were on opposite teams, it doesn't make any difference as far the rule is concerned. The rule says, "A player is out of bounds when he/she touches...", not a player is touched by, so it is certainly not OOB. Only penalize the player for their actions, not someone else's which he/she cannot control. If you wanted to be a real harda$$, it would be a T on the coach, but I agree with JR here, and I would not call it on people on the same team. Opposing member, however, I call a T, and a fan I eject.

If you wanted to be a real harda$$, it would be a T on the coach, but I agree with JR here, and I would not call it on people on the same team. Opposing member, however, I call a T, and a fan I eject.
[/B][/QUOTE]How can you justify not calling the rule uniformly?:confused: How could you possibly call the rule,as written,against one team-and ignore it against another team? All of your posts in this thread so far seem to point out that you think it is mandatory to call something according to the strict language of a written rule,and now you are recommending that we selectively apply a certain rule only. Why???

Btw,here are your exact quotes from previous responses in this thread:

"If we are not diligent and make an error which puts us in such a situation, <i>we must then follow what is written in the rules,after all that is why they are there</i>.Some say the rules aren't fair,so change them. <i>But is it any more fair not to follow them?</i>"

"Unfortunately,common sense does not always win out.In my opinion, this is one of those goofy situations,which if you are silly enough to get yourself into,<i>you have to follow the rulebook to the letter to get out</i>."

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 6th, 2003 at 05:51 AM]

JR, this discussion has been a bit confusing as we have been jumping back and forth between different senarios. There are two distinctly different plays at issue:
1. A player steps on or touches an object which is ON the boundary line.
2. A player is touched by a coach. (His or the opposing coach.)

In play #1 we have a clear rule (7-1-1)with very specific language to cover the situation. In this case I do believe that we should follow it to the letter and the quotes of mine which you provided apply to this situation.
In play #2 we are admittedly stretching a rule to cover the situation. (10-4-2 or 10-4-1 it is unclear to me which rule would best apply.) Since we are doing this, the language given under whichever rule we select will not be as clear and specific to the situation, therefore, I believe that more flexibility in its application and interpretation is called for.
To be as clear as possible, I do not believe that a coach touching a player necessarily means that he has entered the court. However, if it is distracting, unnerving, or disadvantageous to such a player, I think that the coach's action should be construed as unsporting. Obviously this interpretation would only make sense if the player and coach were on opposing teams.
However, if there is a clarification or NFHS casebook ruling that a coach who touches a player on the court during the game is considered to have entered the court, then I'd have to say that it applies the same to members of the same team just the same as it would to opponents.
Hope that clarifies my views for you.

In play #1 we have a clear rule (7-1-1)with very specific language to cover the situation. In this case I do believe that we should follow it to the letter and the quotes of mine which you provided apply to this situation.
In play #2 we are admittedly stretching a rule to cover the situation. (10-4-2 or 10-4-1 it is unclear to me which rule would best apply.) Since we are doing this, the language given under whichever rule we select will not be as clear and specific to the situation, therefore, I believe that more flexibility in its application and interpretation is called for.
To be as clear as possible, I do not believe that a coach touching a player necessarily means that he has entered the court. However, if it is distracting, unnerving, or disadvantageous to such a player, I think that the coach's action should be construed as unsporting. Obviously this interpretation would only make sense if the player and coach were on opposing teams.

[/B][/QUOTE]OK,I think that I got it now.

If the B coach is standing by the sideline with his shoe half on/half off the court, and an A player who is dribbling the ball steps on the part of the B coach's shoe that is on the court,then you must-by the very specific language of R7-1-1-call A1 for being OOB and give team B the ball for a throw-in.

Howver,in almost the scenario above,if the B coach's foot was in the air instead of on the ground,and the A dribbler then contacted the part of the foot that was in-bounds, it would be a technical foul on the B coach instead of a violation-as per R10-4-1or2.

Correct,as per your reasoning above?

Yes, JR, those are the calls that I would make.