Dribble ...

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, 1989)


4.15.1 SITUATION C: A1 attempts a pass to A2 during pressing action in A’s backcourt. The ball hits B’s backboard and deflects directly back to A1 who catches the ball and starts a dribble. RULING: The pass against B’s backboard was the start of a dribble which ended when A1 caught the ball. It is a violation for a second dribble. (4-4-5; 9-5)

It's the holy grail, a citation that explicitly tells us that it only takes the start of a dribble to be a dribble.

The casebook play doesn't say anything about the ball hitting the floor, or being touched a second time. Nothing. It just says that A1 "starts a dribble".

I disagree. I feel that it does say something about the the ball being touched a second time with "...which ended when A1 caught the ball." You feel that "starts a dribble" is the key when IMO, "..which ended when.." is also paramount. That is the violation for a second dribble, the complete act, not just the start of it.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

he is just being picky.

Um, no kidding. Apparently you glossed over my post and missed the part where I indicated "Technically,...."

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron and I were on the same side then too.

And I guarantee that neither one of you would call anything until the ball was touched.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Where does it state that stationary player may toss the ball into the air and catch it?

Where does it state that the ball may not be touched twice by the hands during a dribble? Is it this: The dribble ends when: c. The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands? But the twice touch doesn't have to be simultaneous, does it? Can't it just be twice before the ball hits the floor?

4.44.3 Sit C for tossing from one hand to the other. See rule (you cited already) 4-15 art 4 and case 4.15.4.Sit C for twice touch stuff.


There are instances where the books (rule and/or case) indicate "starts a dribble" (note a verb) is the issue but then that same case will have a ruling that indicates the violation is a "second dribble" (note a noun). Case 4.15.1.Sit C is a perfect example.