I understand both sides but lean toward the idea that originally, officials indeed were not going to split hairs on whether a dribbler was touching the ball while touching the BC.
Now, perhaps another piece of the puzzle is case 7.1.1 Sit D, which appears to possibly conflict with rule 9-3-1. The case indicates a dribble is started by an IB player, that same player is OOB, and that player is allowed to return IB and legally continue dribbling.
So a player is dribbling, steps OOB while not touching the ball, returns IB, and continues dribbling.
Seems to be the same NOTE in 9-3-1.
Also, why could't the case apply to the division line. Player jumps from FC, saves ball from going into BC by throwing it to FC, players lands in BC, returns to FC, and continues dribbling. Seems legal enough or does it equate to 9-3-1 and make it illegal?
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
|