Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Honestly, I can't believe that you ... truly believe that the officials on this board can't judge the difference in a dribble and a pass.
|
BktBallRef,
There is no reason to believe that.
If justanotherref said it was a dribble, fine. The dribbler was dribbling. It's a given.
But, you miss my point.
The actions were:
Dribbler bounced ball off defender's foot.
Dribbler recovered the ball with two hands.
Dribbler started dribbling.
With this simple sequence of events, I contend there should be only one result.
You agreed that if the ball was intended to be a pass, then the dribbler may start a new dribble; but you further stated that if the dribbler was merely intending to continue the dribble, then a violation should be called when the dribbler recovered the ball and dribbled.
The interjection of the intention factor, in this case, seems to be an anomaly to other rules. The dribbler's Intention, not to be confused with officials' judgement, should not be construed as the driving force for the determination.
The intention of the player must be ignored. If officials start considering the presumed intentions of a player, then the resulting calls will be all over the map and inconsistency will become commonplace.
For the listed actions, only one result should be warranted. There should be no deviation. The call should be the same ... no ifs, ands, or buts. If you call illegal dribble (or no-call the act) in either case (dribbling, or passing), then make the same call in both, identical, cases. I'll have your back.
*****
The original play could be expanded to legally hit a second player's foot [and (please indulge me) maybe, yet a third player's foot] before the dribbler recovers the ball with both hands and commences dribbling.
At some point, that original dribbler must be allowed to recover and start dribbling again, after being touched by another, or numerous other, player(s).
mick