[Nevadaref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Originally posted by Nevadaref

No, READ WHAT I WROTE. "The definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about a defender touching the ball." That was in response to the Wizard's post, "His loss of controls was by his own actions. There was no interrupted dribble by a defender."

Now read the defintion of an interrupted dribble.

4-15-5
An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble.

Now, do you see anything in that definition that says anything about a defender touching the ball? No, I didn't think you did.

So, no, we are not both wrong. You're simply addressing a different issue than I was. One, in fact, that has nothing to do with the play.

Gonna have to stick to my guns on this one. Juules wrote the following, which is flat-out WRONG: [QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

It doesn't matter. Loss of control is loss of control. It doesn't mean loss of contact with the ball, it means loss of control, either through a defender batting it away, or through tripping over his own un-tied shoelaces and batting it away, or dribbling it off his knee, or whatever. If control is lost, it's an interrupted dribble.

I know that you agree that this is incorrect, but by writing what you did: [QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

As Juules said, it doesn't matter.

You make it seem like you are agreeing with what she wrote. Plus since you are quite the rules guru, this clearly confused some people, RD is certainly one of them (see his post above), and I believe wizard is confused as well, since, as you pointed out, he wrote: "There was no interrupted dribble by a defender."
Now rather than telling him that it is impossible to have an interrupted dribble if the defender hit the ball, you told him that the definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about the defender touching the ball. Well, yeah, no one ever said it did, but it is certainly implied that he didn't or else we wouldn't have one.
So wouldn't it have been better for you to point out to him that the dribble has ended if the defender touches it, rather than let him go on believing that this is an interrupted dribble?
That is why I gave you the wink smiley and pointed out what it says under how a dribble ends. I know you know this rule, but I wanted him and Juules to see it.
As for stating that YOU and Juules are BOTH wrong, well, look back at what you wrote and it certainly appears to be guilt by association.