Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21
The rule does not take the length of time of the interruption into account, so it should be deemed an interrupted dribble. So we're talking about a dribbler, meaning the three points rule should still be in effect.
Therefore, it is not a violation.
The intent of player control being lost during an interrupted dribble is for fouls, and shouldn't be applied here. At least that's how it was during another rule discussion, where I tried to apply one definition to a ruling.
|
My final thoughts on it...hopefully....
Ball location rule: During a DRIBBLE from BC To FC...three point contact etc. required...
Definition of dribble in rule 4.
1. Player in control
2. Batting, intentionally pushing ball to floor...
Must have both to meet THE definition of dribble.
Interrupted dribble definition-- ball deflects off leg or gets away. No player control. (Player isn't intentionally batting or pushing ball.)
Two very different things-nearly opposite when you look at each definition. An interrupted dribble, by definition (no player control and ball getting away) cannot be A dribble because the player is not in control and batting the ball intentionally. It is excluded from the definition of dribble. a Dribble, by its definition, (player in control intentionally batting ball) cannot be an interrupted dribble.
The ball location rule says" during a dribble." Drafters used the term and made the definition above. . They also drafted interrupted dribble definition. If they wanted that included in the ball location stuff they could have said "during a dribble or interrupted dribble"....three points apply. They didn't so only when the dribble definition requirements are met do 3 points apply. Must be player control and intentional batting. Thx