back court violation following an interrupted dribble?

[Gutierrez7]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Interesting point. Are you saying that the dribble, although interupted, has not ended so both feet and the ball would need to be in the frontcourt to gain frontcourt status?

The OP stated "recovered loose ball", not "continued dribble of loose ball". I interpreted recovery as ending ones dribble. Since the ball has established front court status and the player is touching the backcourt, by rule as stated in other posts, backcourt violation.

Does that help?

Let me add: OP did not state "recovered loose ball while standing with foot/feet in backcourt". Presumed "dive" meant contacting floor with body other than feet.

[billyu2]

I would say the dribble has not ended (therefore by rule the term "interrupted dribble"). If A1 were to get to the ball and continue the dribble, the interrupted dribble ends and the original dribble continues. But in the OP A1 dives on the floor and possesses the ball ending both the interrupted dribble and the original dribble. During the interrupted dribble I would think A1 is no longer a dribbler because certain rules no longer apply to the situation or to A1 that would apply if A1 was a dribbler. (See 4-15-6) And, as j.a.r. said, the 3 pts. issue would not apply either if A1 was not a dribbler. So, as I see it, we have a situation (interrupted dribble, no player control) but while in Team A control, the ball goes from the back court to the front court and then is touched by A1 whose location is in the back court which results in a violation. What has been confusing to me is the wording in Rule 9-9-2: "While in player and team control in the back court a player shall not cause the ball to go from the back court to the front court and return to the back court . . . Which seems to imply there must be both player and team control which is not the case in an interrupted dribble. To me, it would be more accurate if the wording said: "While in player or team control in the back court . . .

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Gutierrez7

The OP stated "recovered loose ball", not "continued dribble of loose ball". I interpreted recovery as ending ones dribble. Since the ball has established front court status and the player is touching the backcourt, by rule as stated in other posts, backcourt violation.

Does that help?

Let me add: OP did not state "recovered loose ball while standing with foot/feet in backcourt". Presumed "dive" meant contacting floor with body other than feet.

True, but until the point of the recovery, the dribble had not yet ended since the player would be permitted to resume/continue the dribble absent the other complicating factors.

I believe that, while the dribble hasn't ended but is interrupted, the dribbler still has the protection of the 3 points rule. (And I've changed my mind twice as I've typed this).

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

True, but until the point of the recovery, the dribble had not yet ended since the player would be permitted to resume/continue the dribble absent the other complicating factors.

I believe that, while the dribble hasn't ended but is interrupted, the dribbler still has the protection of the 3 points rule. (And I've changed my mind twice as I've typed this).

I think I agree here. The interrupted dribble stopped when the ball was possessed. Since the dribble ended and all three points weren't in the front court, I think its okay.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

True, but until the point of the recovery, the dribble had not yet ended since the player would be permitted to resume/continue the dribble absent the other complicating factors.

I believe that, while the dribble hasn't ended but is interrupted, the dribbler still has the protection of the 3 points rule. (And I've changed my mind twice as I've typed this).

The three points rule in ball location section says "DURING a dribble from BC to FC...."

The definition of Dribble says "A dribble is ball movement CAUSED BY A PLAYER IN CONTROL...."

Even though it is called an "interrupted dribble", it is not, by definition, a DRIBBLE since there is no player control. The player has the right to resume the dribble (get player control back) but what is in between cant be a dribble under the definitions imo.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The three points rule in ball location section says "DURING a dribble from BC to FC...."

The definition of Dribble says "A dribble is ball movement CAUSED BY A PLAYER IN CONTROL...."

Even though it is called an "interrupted dribble", it is not, by definition, a DRIBBLE since there is no player control. The player has the right to resume the dribble (get player control back) but what is in between cant be a dribble under the definitions imo.

I agree with this. And, again, the fact that rules that would apply during a dribble do not apply during an interrupted dribble. Rule 4-15-6
a. no closely guarded count
b. no player control fouls
c. no time out requests granted
d. no out of bounds violations for the player involved

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

True, but until the point of the recovery, the dribble had not yet ended since the player would be permitted to resume/continue the dribble absent the other complicating factors.

I believe that, while the dribble hasn't ended but is interrupted, the dribbler still has the protection of the 3 points rule. (And I've changed my mind twice as I've typed this).

If A1 is still considered a "dribbler" during an interrupted dribble, why is it not a violation if he steps out of bounds?

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by billyu2

If A1 is still considered a "dribbler" during an interrupted dribble, why is it not a violation if he steps out of bounds?

Good point there.

[BigCat]

also, in addition to what i mentioned in post 13, the dictionary definition of interrupt is "to stop." interrupted dribble means the dribble has stopped. 3 points, as mentioned above, says must be "during" a dribble.

The dribble has not ended but it has stopped. that's my opinion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

If A1 is still considered a "dribbler" during an interrupted dribble, why is it not a violation if he steps out of bounds?

I didn't suggest that A1 was still a dribbler during the interruption but the moment they touch the ball, they are again a dribbler. Being between the time the dribble has started and not yet having ended, it is still during the dribble. Sort of like commercials that happen during a game....they're during the game but not part of the game.

I could flip the other way on this (and did a few times before I posted my opinion).

If you consider the opposite case, what if the dribbler dribbles the ball off of a leg very briefly as they're crossing the line such that the ball bounces in the front court and is able to, after an ever so brief delay, continue the dribble? Is that an interrupted dribble? Is that a violation?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you consider the opposite case, what if the dribbler dribbles the ball off of a leg very briefly as they're crossing the line such that the ball bounces in the front court and is able to, after an ever so brief delay, continue the dribble?

Is that an interrupted dribble?

yes

Is that a violation?

yes

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

yes



yes

Just for glancing off his own leg such that he had to adjust slightly to continue the dribble? Really?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just for glancing off his own leg such that he had to adjust slightly to continue the dribble? Really?

The definition of interrupted dribble includes the word momentarily. How long is that? When you say he was able to "continue the dribble," that says to me that this was indeed an interrupted dribble. So if it was an interrupted dribble it wasn't a dribble when the ball gained frontcourt status. The three point rule applies only during a dribble. So if this player now touches the ball with a foot in the backcourt, whether it's to resume the dribble or not, this is a backcourt violation.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

yes



yes

What's the violation? The touch was not an intentional kick, and it's not a double dribble.