Quote:
Originally posted by just another ref
You know what? The more I wrestle with this question, the more I think that it (like a lot of other test questions) is
really a non-issue. If a dribbler is in a normal posture dribbling the ball and steps on a line, the whistle will go off quick enough that he will not have time to put up his hands and make a show of not dribbling again. The official in this case probably will not actually know (or need to know) whether the dribbler touched the ball and the line at the same time or not. If the dribbler loses his footing, even slightly, and touches the line, even though the ball may be close at hand, I think we have an interrupted dribble.
|
JAR, of course that is the way that you're gonna call it in the real world. Always a violation for being OOB unless something different occurs with it, such as an interrupted dribble happening at exactly the same time(in the official's opinion). When they put in the "interruped dribble" language, the main criteria to judge whether it occurred or not was "whether the dribbler could immediately continue his dribble." If they couldn't, in the official's opinion, you had an interrupted dribble.
The language in the book on this particular play is murky, though.
Around here, we thrive on murky language! Our goal is to make Chuck's head explode!
PS- Don't get me wrong though. Mick's claims are certainly logical and defensible under the murky language,imo.