Thread: illegal dribble
View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 23, 2005, 12:38am
assignmentmaker assignmentmaker is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 508
I think elecref points to an inconsistency

Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by truerookie
yes, in both scenerio NFHS 4-15-4c; 4-15-2
Nope, there's nothing illegal about the first scenario. It's not an illegal dribble until A1 touches it again after ending his original dribble. Deecee has the right answer.

Rule 9-5.
I beg to differ. A dribble is started by pushing the ball to the floor (4-15-3). It doesn't say you have to touch it again for it to be a dribble. If you judge that the player was dribbling - violation.

Check out case 4.15.4 Situation A. Note that the violation occurs when A1 pushes the ball to the floor, not when A1 catches it after it hits the floor.

Z
However a pass is when a player throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player.

If a player bats the ball how do you differentiate between a pass & a dribble?
Based on 4.15.4 Situation A, I'd say that a referee's judgment is required.

Z
So I can judge a bounce pass is a double dribble?
You could, but it would be pretty poor judgement. I'm not trying to be a jerk. How do you interpret 4.15.4 Sit A?

Z
"How do you interpret 4.15.4 Sit A?"

As you must interpret lots of Fed rules. As best you can. Many, even most of the time, rule changes have been made and interpretations added on an ad hoc basis, without adequate attention to clarity and consistency. Are the rules worse than the Windows operating system, where to 'shut down' you go to 'start'?

Consider the poor 'Intentional Foul'. "It may or may not be premeditated", despite the fact that premeditated is a pretty good synonym for intentional.

I am not simply kicking the dog here. The rules grew up by committee, over a long period of time. It is a shame, IMHO, that the Fed has not invested some of its cashflow in having people skilled in the art normalize the rules.

This all being pre-amble, you interpet 4.15.4 Situation A as being slightly less than robust and use your judgment in the matter under consideration here as to whether or not a braincramp, pass, or dribble is intended - or, ohmygoditgetsworse - a 'fumble' has gone down, so to speak.

__________________
Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient.
Reply With Quote