Establish back in bounds... Please Help

[Camron Rust]

Legal.

And "*clearly* establishes himself back in bounds" means that the player is not touching OOB and is touching or last touched the court inbounds. It also doesn't matter what touches inbounds or how much touches inbounds (1 foot, 2 feet, a butt, a knee, etc.)

Why does everyone keep asking about this? The rule and case play are clear. I don't see the confusion.

[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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why does everyone keep asking about this?

"Everyone" doesn't. Cf. # of posts of inquirer. Perhaps a non-official utilizing our forum as a source of accurate rules information. Or maybe a new official just learning the rules. And by the repetition this and other rudimentary rules are cemented in our memories, right?
"Repetitio mater studiorum est."
Glad the question was asked!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why does everyone keep asking about this? The rule and case play are clear. I don't see the confusion.

That is what we say when you ask questions sometimes.

But to be fair, this is a common question because it is a common myth. Usually people that are asking assume this is a rule because they have heard others for years suggest it is a rule. Also it is not clear that this person is an official, which you should know is clearly not something non-officials know or know where to look this stuff up.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is what we say when you ask questions sometimes.

But to be fair, this is a common question because it is a common myth. Usually people that are asking assume this is a rule because they have heard others for years suggest it is a rule. Also it is not clear that this person is an official, which you should know is clearly not something non-officials know or know where to look this stuff up.

Peace

I will also add that the rules on this in other sports are different, and some (especially non-officials) try to transfer the rules (or guidelines) from one sport to another.

[CountTheBasket]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I will also add that the rules on this in other sports are different, and some (especially non-officials) try to transfer the rules (or guidelines) from one sport to another.

I was just about to say, I really have always believed the confusion on this rule is because of football OOB and re-establishing rules

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why does everyone keep asking about this? The rule and case play are clear. I don't see the confusion.

AR -

Why do you care or even respond ??? We don't know the ID of the poster....the more the merrier and I hope we don't run good people off this forum because of posts like the way you responded.

[Adam]

It's the nature of a discussion forum like this, we're going to get repeated questions. That's ok. I think it's great, even.

For officials who have been studying the rules for years, the questions may come across as basic. Most of us remember, though, that there was a time when we were new to the actual rules and such "basic" questions were still a part of our learning process.

Is this a basic question? Yes, but I know a lot of veteran officials who get it wrong by misapplying the college rule. I've seen this called by the occasional veteran official (sometimes by otherwise very good officials) for a variety of reasons (all wrong, of course.)

I'd rather have people come and inquire than continue operating under misconceptions or struggling to find the reference in the rule book.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's the nature of a discussion forum like this, we're going to get repeated questions. That's ok. I think it's great, even.

...

Is this a basic question? Yes, but I know a lot of veteran officials who get it wrong by misapplying the college rule. I've seen this called by the occasional veteran official (sometimes by otherwise very good officials) for a variety of reasons (all wrong, of course.)

I'd rather have people come and inquire than continue operating under misconceptions or struggling to find the reference in the rule book.

How would the college rule be applied in a HS game that would make a ruling wrong where it would have been right in a college game? Isn't the rule and the ruling the same in both? That going OOB due to momentum and returning to touch the ball is legal.

Isn't the college difference you're refering to really about going OOB on purpose, such as to to go a round a screen, and being the first person to touch the ball (i.e., receive a pass) after returning?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes, but I know a lot of veteran officials who get it wrong by misapplying the college rule.

Is the college rule different?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How would the college rule be applied in a HS game that would make a ruling wrong where it would have been right in a college game? Isn't the rule and the ruling the same in both? That going OOB due to momentum and returning to touch the ball is legal.

Isn't the college difference you're refering to really about going OOB on purpose, such as to to go a round a screen, and being the first person to touch the ball (i.e., receive a pass) after returning?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is the college rule different?

I should have worded it slightly different, as "missapplying a misunderstood college rule."

They misunderstand the college rule, and then proceed to apply it at the wrong level. Two wrongs making a worse wrong, IMO.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is the college rule different?

Is this the rule in question?
NCAA: 9-4
Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after his return to the playing court.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

Is this the rule in question?
NCAA: 9-4
Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after his return to the playing court.

I agree that this rule is different from the HS equivalent (in HS, it's *supposed to be* an immediate violation to run OOB on your own volition).

This rule, though, has nothing to do with the OP, and nothing to do with "establishing" back inbounds.

I can see where it might be part of the confusion for some.

[KevinP]

The negative responses that are posted on here are the exact reason I never post. Many new refs with valid questions are getting slammed and embarrassed. In our D2 mens meeting this weekend, it was said, dont forget where you came from, thank the one(s) that got you to where you are now and help the new guy/gals.