Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch1town
My only issue is who's to say whether or not the ball striking the dribblers foot was an interrupted dribble?
Did it not strike the dribblers foot?
After striking the foot did it not get away but favorably come back?
|
It's a judgment call that is made using the rule guidelines. To meet the criteria of an "interrupted dribble", the ball must get loose or get away from the dribbler. Iow, player control is definitely lost. If the player can
immediately continue his dribble in perfect rhythm, I can't possibly see how anybody could judge that there was ever a loss of player control. But, others might judge that the same play actually was an interrupted dribble. As I said, shrug.....and good luck to 'em.
Little background. Back in the 80's iirc, the FED put in an absolutely stoopid case book play. The ruling was that if a player lost control of his dribble, he wasn't allowed to go get the ball and dribble again if the ball wasn't touched by another player in between. That was true even if the player didn't end his original dribble while getting the loose ball. If he did dribble after getting the loose ball, it was an illegal second dribble. That lasted one year and they yanked it and replaced it with the wording that we use now. They also issued a second case book play that has disappeared over time. In both of the case plays, they defined an "interrupted dribble" as a player not being able to immediately dribble because the ball got away from them.
Afaik, that's still how the play should be adjudicated.