Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker
Or is it . . . the violation is that the carry terminated the dribble, and he then dribbled it a second time, right? Seems to me that while the "carry" signal may be technically unnecessary, it conveys useful information about the nature of the violation. (Of course, one could argue that all of the signals as to what the violation was aren't truly necessary as long as the referee signals that a violation occurred . . . they are just helpful to communicate.)
|
The problem comes when somebody, say a coach, wants a definition of a "carry" after you call it against his team. You don't have one, which leads you to get into the definition of ending a dribble, thus leading to the question of "why isn't it a double dribble violation, instead?"
That's not a likely scenario, and it's being nit-picky, but shouldn't a rule book be that technical? If you have a signal for a "carry", then why wouldn't you define a "carry"? Or why not just call it a "double dribble" or an "illegal dribble" (needing a new signal for that)?