Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
Maybe I am, but I don't think so. I think you are reading a specified distance into the rule that isn't there.
Your scenario isn't an interrupted dribble. It's just a dribble. The player is controlling the ball. It hasn't gotten away from him.
The common meaning of the phrase "gets away" is unintentional movement. If the player puts the ball where he wants it the ball has not gotten away. The rules do not include any statement about the ball being outside of an arm's reach or any other distance.
|
Nope, I am reading the literal meaning of "player control" the exact same way that the rules makers intended it to be read. If you can't immediately dribble, there is nowayinhell you can have player control at the same time. Quite simply, you can't control the ball if you can't reach it. And intent has never been inserted into the equation either, for reasons that at least to me are quite simple. We aren't mind readers. We have no real idea what any dribbler is actually intending to do. We have to
guess their intent. Guessing is never a good officiating practice.
As I said, you're overthinking the heck out of the play imo by inserting your own idea of how the rule should read rather than the way that it actually does read. Intent is never mentioned rules-wise anywhere.
Player control is defined by rule as holding or dribbling the ball. And the rules also state that there is no player control during an interrupted dribble. Are you really trying to tell me that a dribbler still has player control after he batted their dribble over the defender and the dribbler now has that defender between him and the ball?