Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
1. Good we agree that upward movement does not mean that the dribble is illegal. The example that I posed refutes your earlier statement about an "air dribble." Can we now agree that touching the ball again before it reaches the floor is the proper definition of an "air dribble?"
This is really as far as we should need to go as all other plays could be decided based upon that premise.
2. No, the ball need not be batted into the air. The player could simply knock the ball directly across his body to his other hand after it rebounds up from the floor.
.
|
And I consider that as into the air.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
3. You missed the point. The action is still DURING A DRIBBLE. The batting into the air just allows more time for the events to unfold. The case book clearly tells you that a player cannot touch the ball twice while it is in the air DURING A DRIBBLE before it strikes the floor. How high or how long the ball is in flight does not matter. To believe so is illogical and to attempt to put such restrictions upon play would be impossible.
.
|
And again, what rule in the rule book is that case based on? None of them. The case is also a case of batting the ball up an over the head of the opponenent...or into the air....not to the floor.
It's a matter of direction, even intent. There are certain actions intended to circumvent the basic rules that are, by interpretation, considered to be a violations. A ball that brushes a 2nd hand on the way to the floor is not one of them. That is not the intent and purpose of the rule....certainly not hitting a foot on the floor.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
4. As an official must observe the action and make decisions, I do not believe that my causality is backwards. An official watching the dribbler must determine if the ball escaped the control of a player. If the officials deems that to have occurred then there was a loss of player control. An official must first decide that the ball got away from the player before thinking that an interrupted dribble has occurred.
.
|
To determine control, you must first decide if the player is holding or dribbling the ball (the definition of control). If they are not, then, there is no control. Player control is not something you use to determine it was a dribble or not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
5. What rule? Try this one. 4-15 describes the legal movement of a dribble. If the action does not meet the provided definition then it is either an illegal dribble or not a dribble at all.
.
|
An illegal dribble (as defined in rule 9) is dribbling a 2nd time after a first has ended. The terms which end a dribble are clear. This is not one of them so the dribble has never ended...this there is no illegal dribble.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
6. If you are saying that a player cannot allow a dribble to come up and contact his hand, have the ball separate from that hand, and then reach out and contact the ball again, then you are correct. That is an illegal dribble.
.
|
You've provided nothing that supports that. If the book doesn't provide that it is illegal, it is legal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
How small of a separation do I watch for? I call the obvious.
|
And that is my whole point. If the ball is pushed down with one hand and inadvertently hits the other hand on the way to the floor, it is not what the rule intended to address and is not "obvious". Officious, maybe, but not obvious.