Hmmmmmm....so rainmaker said, "If control is lost it is an interrupted dribble." She also stated "...either through a defender batting it away or..."

So my question...when a defender bats a ball away, is this considered an interrupted dribble or a dribble that has ended...or both?

RD
P.S. Don Zimmerman's head looked like a basketball in Pedro's hands... Game 3

[Edited by RookieDude on Oct 11th, 2003 at 06:58 PM]

If a defender bats the ball away,the dribble has now ended.Player control has also ended, but there is still team control.It is a loose ball. That means that the player that was dribbling can go get the ball,and either continue to dribble or grab the ball and legally start another dribble.It is not an interrupted dribble.

In an interrupted dribble,the ball is loose and there is no player control,but there is also still team control.The player that was dribbling can go get the ball,and can legally continue dribbling or they can grab the ball to end their dribble. They cannot dribble again,however,if they do grab the ball or touch it with 2 hands.That ends their dribble.

Naturally,in both cases any other player on the floor other than the dribbler can go get the loose ball,and either dribble,grab the ball without travelling,or grab the ball and start a dribble.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 11th, 2003 at 09:10 PM]

Um, I think there's still team control. At least this is true in NCAA; I don't have a Fed rulebook.

Rule 4-13. Art. 3. Team control shall continue until the ball is in flight during a try for goal, an opponent secures control or the ball becomes dead.

None of these have happened, so there's still team control.

Whoops. You and Mick be right.Certainly screwed that up,didn't I? When a defender hits the ball,no player control but still team control ,and the dribble has ended. Dribble hasn't ended on an interrupted dribble. The rest of my post applies though(I got most of it right :D).

I went back and edited it.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 11th, 2003 at 09:11 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref Quote: Originally posted by BktBallRef Quote: As Juules said, it doesn't matter. The definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about a defender touching the ball. Try looking what it says under how a dribble ends, Tony. ;) No, READ WHAT I WROTE. "The definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about a defender touching the ball." That was in response to the Wizard's post, "His loss of controls was by his own actions. There was no interrupted dribble by a defender." Now read the defintion of an interrupted dribble. 4-15-5 An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no player control during an interrupted dribble. Now, do you see anything in that definition that says anything about a defender touching the ball? No, I didn't think you did. So, no, we are not both wrong. You're simply addressing a different issue than I was. One, in fact, that has nothing to do with the play.

Gonna have to stick to my guns on this one. Juules wrote the following, which is flat-out WRONG: [QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

It doesn't matter. Loss of control is loss of control. It doesn't mean loss of contact with the ball, it means loss of control, either through a defender batting it away, or through tripping over his own un-tied shoelaces and batting it away, or dribbling it off his knee, or whatever. If control is lost, it's an interrupted dribble.

I know that you agree that this is incorrect, but by writing what you did: [QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

As Juules said, it doesn't matter.

You make it seem like you are agreeing with what she wrote. Plus since you are quite the rules guru, this clearly confused some people, RD is certainly one of them (see his post above), and I believe wizard is confused as well, since, as you pointed out, he wrote: "There was no interrupted dribble by a defender."
Now rather than telling him that it is impossible to have an interrupted dribble if the defender hit the ball, you told him that the definition of an interrupted dribble says nothing about the defender touching the ball. Well, yeah, no one ever said it did, but it is certainly implied that he didn't or else we wouldn't have one.
So wouldn't it have been better for you to point out to him that the dribble has ended if the defender touches it, rather than let him go on believing that this is an interrupted dribble?
That is why I gave you the wink smiley and pointed out what it says under how a dribble ends. I know you know this rule, but I wanted him and Juules to see it.
As for stating that YOU and Juules are BOTH wrong, well, look back at what you wrote and it certainly appears to be guilt by association. :)

You really need to take up a hobby, other than trying to find me making a mistake.

I wrote, "As Juules said, it doesn't matter." I didn't agree with her post. In fact, I didn't even read the rest of her post.

Stick to your guns if you like zimp, I wasn't wrong. You're the only one that seems to be confused.

Agree.

Nevada --

You're right about one thing. And as I admit this to you, I am also answering RookieDude's question, which I hadn't gotten to since I was otherwise engaged all weekend. If the defense bats the ball away, the dribble is ended, and the player who was originally dribbling could now legally grab the ball with two hands if he had the chance (and if he wasn't out of bounds.) When I said "It doesn't matter" what I was referring to was the original question about the dribbler stepping out of bounds. As far as the original dribbler stepping OOB, it doesn't matter whether he lost control himself or the defender batted the ball away. Either way, the dribbler can re-establish himself inbounds, and be the first person to touch the ball inbounds, with a dribble if he lost control himself, or with two hands and then a dribble if he wants to and if the defender had batted the ball away. I didn't include all that clarification in the original answer because, well frankly, it didn't seem relevant.

Also, I'd prefer to be either Juulie, or rain, not Juules, especially in the third person. Thanks.

[/B][/QUOTE]

As far as the original dribbler stepping OOB, it doesn't matter whether he lost control himself or the defender batted the ball away. Either way, the dribbler can re-establish himself inbounds, and be the first person to touch the ball inbounds, with a dribble if he lost control himself, or with two hands and then a dribble if he wants to and if the defender had batted the ball away. [/B][/QUOTE]

Juulie,
Thanks much! I didn't think we'd EVER get back to the original question. :D

So what can a player do after an interrupted dribble
 

If player A1 is dribbling and loses control (interrupted dribble) and then regains control, can he dribble again?

If he gains control while out of bounds, I understand that the ref should NOT blow the play dead for a violation. So, therefore, he just lets play continue, correct? Therefore, can player A1 dribble the ball again, as long as it doesn't touch the boundary line or anywhere out of bounds?

Re: So what can a player do after an interrupted dribble
 

It is legal for A1 to dribble again because his original dribble never ended. Of course,A1 can also go grab the ball and then either hold it,pass or shoot it.What you look for in these cases is A1 losing control, and then grabbing the ball before dribbling again. Grabbing the ball would have ended his dribble, and then the succeeding dribble would now be illegal.Of course, if the defense touches the ball when it's loose, then the dribble has also ended(as has A1's player control, but not A team control), and then A1 or any player could now legally grab the ball and start a new dribble..

Re: So what can a player do after an interrupted dribble
 

If A1 gains control while out of bounds, the ref SHOULD YES blow the play dead. The rule is only to NOT blow it dead, if A1 gains control AFTER being out of bounds, only on an interrupted dribble.

LEGAL:: A1 loses control, then steps oob, then steps back in, then re-establishes the dribble.

ILLEGAL:: A1 loses control, steps oob, touches ball before stepping in-bounds with at least one foot.

ALSO ILLEGAL:: A1 is dribbling. He pushes the ball down on a single bounce of the established dribble, steps out, steps back inbounds, then touches the ball again.

Question 43 on IAABO/GHSA Refresher Exam 2003
 

As A-1 is chasing his/her interrupted dribble, A-1 steps on the boundary line. Official rules A-1 is out of bounds and awards the ball to team B. Is the official correct?

The answer I've been given is No.

As I think about it, this is different than my previous post. The question does not indicate whether or not A-1 touched the ball. The rulebook says that if the player steps on the boundary line while dribbling, he/she is out of bounds and that this does not depend on the player touching the ball at the time he/she stepped on the line. But in this case, the player lost control due to an interrupted dribble. I guess my confusion came from the fact that the rule book says that a player who loses control due to an interrupted dribble can not be called for an out of bounds violation. But what you are saying is that if the player gains control while out of bounds, he/she is out of bounds.


I hope I got that right!

Re: Question 43 on IAABO/GHSA Refresher Exam 2003
 

Yes, you did.