Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I agree,it would not be correct to call an OOB violation for these scenarios because the dribbler could not reasonably retouch the ball and continue his dribble... no violation. You are absolutely right.
A completely different situation is the dribbler that COULD continue his dribble (the ball is still moving in the same direction and at the same speed as the dribbler). The scenario I am pleading is one of a dribbler that could retouch, one that has not really lost control but chooses to abandon his dribble because he has stepped OOB. He could retouch but chooses not to continue - VIOLATION. The dribble did not end until after he had stepped on the line and then made a decision to not retouch. This sure seems to fit under the Note of Rule 9-3. I say this because I feel the dribble did not end until the dribbler consciously made the decision to not retouch and at this point he has already stepped on the line. Perhaps this is stretching the rule but it sure seems appropriate to me.
If this discussion continues, please discuss this scenario and not the one of a dramatic save where the player ends up three rows into the stands. Nobody is going to call that OOB unless the player stepped OOB and then touched the ball.
|
Fun ain't it?
DownTownTonyBrown,
Let's find the difference:
Obviously common interpretation:
Dribbling --> steps on line -->
*whistle* --> does not retouch --> OOB
My scenarios:
Dribbling --> steps on line -->
nothing --> does not retouch --> play on.
Dribbling --> steps on line -->
nothing -->
Retouches - dribble continues -->
*whistle*--> OOB
I can find no other rule to even partially back-up the poorly written, singular note that the ball is out of bounds while it has last touched a player,
and the floor,
in bounds but is out of bounds because we imagine what a player may possibly due.
If the common interpretation of that note is correct, then we must add exceptions
and more notes to ball location, player location, dribbling and use words like maybe, possibly, presumed intent.
The Note interpretation cannot be back-up with anything (no other rule, no other case, no other imagined situation) other than gut feeling and relentless belief in the unbelievable phrase of "just cuz".
mick