Dribble ...

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the other cases mention that another touch happens and a violation has occurred but they do not say that the violation can't occur without it.

Can't believe I am doing this...sigh. You are incorrect. The word "provided" in the case I cited indicates that the violation can't occur without the second touch.

Even 4.15.4 Sit D indicates the second touch is required with the words "..because the ball was touched twice..."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

4.15.4 Sit D indicates the second touch is required with the words "..because the ball was touched twice..."

4.15.4 SITUATION D: While dribbling: (a) A1 bats the ball over the head of an
opponent, runs around the opponent, bats the ball to the floor and continues to
dribble; RULING: Violation in (a), because the ball was touched twice by A1’s
hand(s) during a dribble, before it touched the floor.

The plot thickens.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Can't believe I am doing this...sigh. You are incorrect. The word "provided" in the case I cited indicates that the violation can't occur without the second touch.

The word "provided" is in a case about throwing the ball off the opponents backboard...something that looks nothing like a dribble but is declared so anyway. No way anyone could even think it might be a dribble just by the way it looks. Not related to the case we're talking about at all.

Originally Posted by bucky

Even 4.15.4 Sit D indicates the second touch is required with the words "..because the ball was touched twice..."

You are completely misreading that case. Look at it again.....

"...because the ball was touched twice by A1’s hand(s) during a dribble, before it touched the floor."

You can't just leave out the most relevant part of the case. This case is about a player throwing/batting the ball up in the air, and running to touch it (catch or continue the dribble) before it hits the floor. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the point you're trying to make. The second touch doesn't make it a dribble, it makes the dribble that already started and illegal dribble.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The word "provided" is in a case about throwing the ball off the opponents backboard...something that looks nothing like a dribble but is declared so anyway. No way anyone could even think it might be a dribble just by the way it looks. Not related to the case we're talking about at all.

It is the one I am discussing. Do not throw "We" in there.

You are completely misreading that case. Look at it again.....

"...because the ball was touched twice by A1’s hand(s) during a dribble, before it touched the floor."

You can't just leave out the most relevant part of the case. This case is about a player throwing/batting the ball up in the air, and running to touch it (catch or continue the dribble) before it hits the floor. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the point you're trying to make. The second touch doesn't make it a dribble, it makes the dribble that already started and illegal dribble.

Your previous argument was that a second touch was not required. You said nothing about the floor. I do not need that part of the case. The relevant part is the one that disputes your claim, the part about the second touch.

You always seem to forget what you said/argued/debated in previous posts. Then it comes out later as "not what I meant" in future posts. Lol, whatever. Stick to what you type and not your thoughts. Last post to you, promise.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

It is the one I am discussing. Do not throw "We" in there.

Your previous argument was that a second touch was not required. You said nothing about the floor. I do not need that part of the case. The relevant part is the one that disputes your claim, the part about the second touch.

You can't take a few words out of a case and completely out of context like that. You might as well cite a case on uniform rules. It would be equally applicable.

Again, this case, since you apparently haven't read it, is about a player, in the middle of a dribble, batting the ball UP and touching it again before it hits the floor....fundamentally and completely different than how a dribble begins.

Originally Posted by bucky

You always seem to forget what you said/argued/debated in previous posts. Then it comes out later as "not what I meant" in future posts. Lol, whatever. Stick to what you type and not your thoughts. Last post to you, promise.

We have been talking about how a dribble is started and whether it has to be touched again, in general, before it actually is a dribble. I've been 100% consistent on this...in this thread and for years. I have no idea who you're confusing me with.

Your original statement...

Originally Posted by bucky

A dribble has parts..such as throwing/hitting/batting as well as player control. Once A1 has ended his dribble, he can start another one by throwing (one part) it but then the subsequent control (another part) is what made it illegal.

That is simply not true, not even close. A player can never start a 2nd dribble after the first (without losing control and the ball being touched by another player).

As I've said over and over, many, including myself in most cases, where it may be ambiguous, wait until that subsequent touch to confirm it was a dribble, but, the dribble itself always begins on the release, not the 2nd touch and was illegal from the very beginning. However, many just wait to the 2nd touch to be certain.

You might like to try to push this off on me but all I'm doing is telling you what the rule actually says. Read it in its entirety and don't leave out half the words which change the entire meaning.