back court violation following an interrupted dribble?

[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.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

The definition also includes the words "gets away." How far does "gets away" have to be? In the OP A1 had to dive to recover control of the ball. I think we can safely say the ball "got away." In Camron's example, I don't think so. But if my brain is quick enough to tell me (during the time it takes the player to regain control) "THAT'S AN INTERRUPTED DRIBBLE. CALL THE VIOLATION!" then I will.
But . . . it isn't, so I ain't.

[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.