[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

If you judge it to be the start of a dribble, it's an interrupted dribble because the ball has momentarily gotten away from him. There's no player control.

It wouldn't be traveling unless he caught or touched the ball, prior to the ball hitting the floor. This is one of only two ways you can travel without holding the ball. (Did you get that Mark? )

BTW, I've seen theis play several times and I've never seen the ball thrown. Every time I've ever had it, the ball has been tapped inbounds, and the player has returned to get it. This, again, goes back to looking for something to call. There's nothing there.

On the tap and fetch, I agree you have no player control, no violation violation. However. . .

I am not questioning whether or not most times it is a tap, I was reacting to the situation as (re)phrased. A2 catches ball, throws back inbounds, and then goes inbounds and is first to touch. Catch and throw is already there, and I assume the ball will hit the floor in this situation (ball going one way, player going other way) and we have the start of a dribble.

Now you say we have an interrupted dribble - but how was it interrupted? A2 started the dribble with the controlled throw and never lost it in my reasoning. Refer back to the other case, A1 dribbles, pushes ball ahead and it bounces exactly where A1 pushes it, A1 steps out and back in and runs forward to the ball and resumes dribble. This is the case book example where we have no interrupted dribble, so we have a violation.

I see this other scenario exactly the same way. A2 in crew's case throws the ball in a direction and nothing intervenes to interrupt the dribble, then A2 comes back inbounds to resume dribble, it's a violation by case and rule. The ball did not "momentarily get away" from the dribbler, it went exactly where the dribbler intended it to go when he threw it. The key to an interupted dribble (as the case examples show) is not that the ball temporarily is out of reach of the dribbler, but that the ball did something other than what the dribbler wanted. Loss of player control is not loss of proximity, but rather the ball not going where you want it to go! This is in line with the casebook example where the dribbler allows the ball to keep bouncing without touching it until he steps back inbounds - loss of control never occurred. Nothing in the case states or implies that the ball remained within reach, just that the ball continued on its intended path and the dribbler later rejoined it.

You can disagree, but I think there is a very reasonable case that the dribble was started (player control w/catch and throw) and was never interrupted (never momentarily got away).