back court violation following an interrupted dribble?

[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]

FWIW. I sent this question out to my entire association, and all the response's I have received back have thought this is not a back court. I think it isn't a BC violation, however I'm not 100% sure and could be swayed to change my mind. Since there was never player control of the ball in the FC, wouldn't this have a bearing on the play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Since there was never player control of the ball in the FC, wouldn't this have a bearing on the play?

"PC in the FC" has no bearing on any BC call.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

So now we're debating whether Camron's play describes an interrupted dribble or not. Does a "brief delay"="momentarily"? This is often a problem when one tries to translate a play from the court onto paper. But I think we agree. If it was an interrupted dribble, this is a violation, whether the next touch is a catch or the resumption of the dribble.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So now we're debating whether Camron's play describes an interrupted dribble or not. Does a "brief delay"="momentarily? This is often a problem when one tries to translate a play from the court onto paper. But I think we agree. If it was an interrupted dribble, this is a violation, whether the next touch is a catch or the resumption of the dribble.

The point of my play was to illustrate that the interrupted dribble may or may not affect the backcourt rule as some might expect. Specifically, a brief bobble of the dribble IS technically an interrupted dribble yet few would consider the backcourt violation of the ball bounced in the frontcourt on such a play. If so, by extension, it shouldn't matter how long the interruption is. Thus, if you're not calling a violation for the play I described, it would be inconsistent to do so in the original play.

I just don't think that the rules were written with this scenario in mind and no matter which way we look at it, it isn't going to be elegant and logical.

As I said above, I could come to either conclusion on this one and could probably support one direction as well as the other and wouldn't fault an official for either call on this.

[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.