[Rob1968]

QUOTE: "This case deals with throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official, not pushing it to the floor."

It has long been understood that the reason for considering "throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official," to be the start of a dribble, is because, doing so, is the same as "pushing it to the floor."

QUOTE: "A fumble can occur at any time, but read the definition of a fumble. It includes the phrase "loss of player control". A dribble cannot occur when a player is not in control."

It is not my intention to re-define a fumble.

Most likely, we agree that a fumble can occur when a player has control of the ball. (4-21)

9-5-3 "A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, unless he/she has lost control because of . . . A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by, another player." (Please, note the wording refering to the dribble having ended, rather the dribble having started).

This seems to indicate that a dribble has both a start - ie: pushing the ball to the floor - and an end - ie: being touched, again, by the ballhandler, (thus, that touch would require a call of a dbl dribble violation), or by another player, (thus, ending any possibility that a dbl dribble can occur.)

9-5-3 seems to support the premise that Case Book 4.15.4 A is an incomplete explanation, because it takes into consideration the "start of a dribble", but omits the "end of a dribble", and one is left to attempt to surmise the intent of the ballhandler, to make the call, rather than judging the action on its merit.
And, Case Book 4.15.4 C takes into consideration both the "start of a dribble," and the "end of a dribble," and allows the official to make a judgement based on the complete action, rather than a perceived intent.

As discussed in another Thread, we are consistently required to make calls based on the action, not on our perception of the intent of the players.