Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Nevada stated it clearly when he said that in absence of a clear rule, the case play should be enough.
The fact that the case play doesn't perfectly match doesn't really affect this case, as the rationale in the case play clearly states the reason it's a violation, and it has nothing to do with the direction in which the ball was batted.
|
Snaqs - I understand that, but since every similar casebook play adds "and ball bounces away" to the OP it's hard to just say okay... afterall I'm a leader not a follower. You can't just pour piss from a boot & tell me it's raining
I think the second part of your post should be directed to a different poster, I fully concur with 2 touches prior to the ball striking the floor = violation (upward or downward).
What happens in between the second touching is judgement IMO.
My
only issue is who's to say whether or not the ball striking the dribblers foot was an interupted dribble?
Did it not strike the dribblers foot?
After striking the foot did it not get away but favorably come back?
It would be GREAT if they made a case play for this particular situation ie:
During a dribble when the ball strikes the foot of the dribbler & returns to the players hands before striking the floor this should be ruled "a violation" OR "an interupted dribble"