[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good point Adam. Interrupted dribble, because the ball "momentarily gets away from the dribbler", which certainly fits the definition of an interrupted dribble, even though this started out as a "intentional" dribble.

Still, to me, the original post seems like it's not an interrupted dribble.

Maybe we have to use that circular logic, that I really, really hate to use, asking the question, "Would you grant a timeout?", to help us decide whether, or not, its a dribble, or an interrupted dribble? Man, I even hate typing those words.

To me, it's similar to the whole (bogus) concept of the "controlled" tap. IMO, if the players isn't in control enough to grant a TO, he's not a dribbler. It may be a "controlled" interrupted dribble, but it's still interrupted. He voluntarily gave up control in order to avoid a violation; nothing wrong with that, IMO.