Dribble ...
 

We all know that this (immediately below) is an illegal (double) dribble:

Play D: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball after the ball touches the floor.

So, let's change it up a little.

Play A: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor.

4-15: Dribble: ART. 3 The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

After the player ends his dribble, he throws it into the air. We all know that a player, all by himself, no defense nearby, may occasionally start his dribble by throwing it into the. So that's the start of a possible second dribble, and his subsequent catch of ball seals the deal and makes it a dribble for sure, more so, an illegal (double) dribble.

Does the catch really seal the deal? Yes, it tells us that it's not a pass (can't pass to self).

But does the deal really need to be sealed? Or, is it sealed?

I'm 100% on board that this player (Play A above) has started a possible second dribble.

4-15: Dribble: ART. 1 A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes
the ball to the floor once or several times. It is not a part of a dribble when the ball touches a player’s own backboard.
ART. 2 During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is
permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s).
ART. 3 The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball
to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.

How can this really be a (second) dribble without the ball ever touching the floor?

Note: " ... to the floor".

9-5: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended.

Does 9-5 read: A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended, or does it read: A player shall not start a dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended?

Can it be a dribble if the ball is only pushed "toward" (in the direction of) the floor (without actually hitting the floor)?

Does the word "to" in the rule mean the same as "toward"?

We know that a dribble can be broken down into parts (It is not a part of a dribble when the ball touches a player’s own backboard), so does one part of a dribble, i.e., the start of a dribble, make it a (full complete) dribble?

If that were so, why wouldn't Fundamental 19 simply read, "... it does not constitute a dribble", instead of "... it does not constitute a part of a dribble."?

We also know that a dribble ends: "... after his/her first dribble has ended (9-5)". Also, what does define the end of a dribble?

So there's the start to a dribble, the dribble, and the end to a dribble.

Here's (below) an unbelievably, almost superhuman, odd play for discussion purposes only.

Play C: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally pushes the ball toward the floor, but in a split second catches the ball before it hits the floor, when the ball is literally inches off the floor, without any foot movement.

Illegal (double) dribble?

Please help me to logically answer these questions (that the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble).

I just want to clear up what the violation is in this play (Play A: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor).

I'm 100% certain that Play A (above) is 100% illegal, but why?

The steps between the throw and the catch can't be a travel. A player must be holding the ball (with one very rare exception) in order to travel.

Similarity ...
 

Do my questions (above post) have any similarity to past Forum discussions involving the following:

When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and touches the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. (from Misunderstood Rules)

Some (including me) said to wait to see if the airborne player touches the ball after it hits the floor, maybe it's the start of a legal pass, before sounding the whistle for a violation.

Others, if I remember correctly, said to immediately sound the whistle for the violation as soon as the ball hits the floor, not waiting for the airborne player to touch the ball after it hits the floor. Some may have even advocated for the violation and whistle without waiting for the ball to even hit the floor.

Certainly not the same, but is this topic (above) similar to deciding whether, or not, the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble?

Are they both about whether, or not, the start (or part of) of a illegal act, is the same as the illegal act itself?

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. For me, the same logic applies to your case of a shooter, afraid of getting blocked, and releasing it to the floor. Everything is fine until the next part (touching the ball) makes it illegal. I am yet to witness any ref at any level call a violation before the ball even hits the floor. In fact, I have never seen one call it without the player touching the ball. I think that one could easily say the same about A1 (ended dribble) throwing the ball way from himself. No ref is calling anything until A1 touches the ball again.

Just my opinion.

I disagree. If it isn't a dribble until the ball is again touched, a player starting a dribble wouldn't be able to pick up the pivot foot until the ball came back to the hand after pushing it to the floor (since the pivot foot must stay down until the dribble is started).

The dribble starts by deliberately pushing/throwing the ball TO the floor. That is the control...the deliberate throw/push, not the next action. Nothing about the definition of a dribble requires anything else to happen.

It just happens that, in practice, most officials wait until it is touched again before declaring it a dribble because it is harder to argue against it at that point, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a dribble the moment it left the hand(s).

Start Of Dribble Equals Dribble ...
 

Play A: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor.

I was thinking along the same line (similar, but not exactly the same, see next post). That's the only explanation for this play (above) being illegal. I'm not a big fan of the start of the dribble being the same as a dribble (it sure would the simpler if the ball hit the floor), but it's the only explanation for this illegal act. I'm also not sure when the start of a dribble turns into an actual dribble (maybe because it's one in the same), nor am sure when the dribble ends. But still, Camron Rust's explanation is the only one that makes any sense for this (ball never hitting the floor) to be an illegal act.

Mind Readers ...
 

Disagree, maybe not in theory, but in practice. The start of a dribble and the start of a pass may legally look exactly the same, and until officials have the ability read a player's mind (intent) we have to wait to see if the "thrown" ball is touched again by the player, or by a teammate, or by an opponent.

We do know that if a player jumps to "throw" a pass and then changes his mind and decides to dribble (as evidenced by the next touch, because it may actually be a pass), then that's a illegal travel violation because the ball must be released before the pivot foot is lifted to start a dribble.

Hit The Floor ...
 

Agree, maybe it was the start of a pass, but this thread deals with whether, or not, the ball has to actually hit the floor for there to be a dribble (I think it doesn't).

We already have to judge intent (try or no try when fouled). This is no different. Everyone knows which it is when it happens, some just want to wait until it can't be argued.

The ball must contact the floor to be a legal dribble. If it doesn't, then it is an illegal dribble. See how that works?
Now go look up the old "air-dribble" which the NFHS banned decades ago. It is why the ball must strike the floor.

Break Out The Ouija Board ...
 

It's just that sometimes the start of a pass (especially a bounce pass), and the start of a dribble, may look exactly the same. Context clues (with experience) are certainly of value, but sometimes the players try to fake each other, which can also fake the officials. I'm on the side of waiting, no need for my impatient whistle to prevent a great pass, or a great steal.

If It's Not Legal, It's Illegal ...
 

Doesn't the chicken have to lay an egg before the egg can be deemed illegal? Doesn't it have to be a dribble for it to be an illegal dribble? For a player to dribble illegally, doesn't he have to dribble? He can't be illegally dribbling when he's not dribbling? Maybe he's doing something else? Right?

I see Nevadaref's point (and may actually agree with him) but wish the NFHS rule language made this more clear.

Rule 9 Section 5 Illegal Dribble
A player shall not dribble a second time after his/her first dribble has ended,
unless it is after he/she has lost control because of:
ART. 1 A try for field goal.
ART. 2 A touch by an opponent.
ART. 3 A pass or fumble which has then touched, or been touched by,
another player.

And, of course, there's always that quote from that ancient basketball clinician, Confucius:

If it's not illegal, it's legal.

Nevadaref, another ancient basketball clinician, seems to be saying:

If it's not legal, it's illegal.

How can one argue with that logic?

https://forum.officiating.com/550795-post36.html

I was not referring to starting a dribble. You are.

Isn't that traveling and not an illegal dribble?

Actually, you are too. Once it is started, it is a dribble and all of the relevant dribble restrictions apply. The ball does not, by rule, have to be touched again for it to be a dribble.. Howeover, many just wait, as you said, until the next touch to confirm it but that doesn't mean that is when it becomes a dribble.

Technically, not true.

Got My Back ...
 

Thanks, fixed it.

44-3-C: The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble.

The Great Debate ...
 

Example, or citation please (would prefer an example).

Not to be argumentative, but for the good of the cause.

Guesswork ...
 

Not waiting, in many cases, but probably not all, is paramount to just plain old ordinary guessing, and we as officials, try to avoid guessing as much as we possibly can.

Not many of us carry a crystal ball in our pocket with an extra whistle, and an extra needle.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.q...=0&w=300&h=300

Practical Application ...
 

It doesn't feel right, but by rule you may be correct, but by practical application, most times we should wait to confirm that it's not the start of a bounce pass.

This rule could be better worded, much better worded.

No, I am not. You are referring to starting a dribble initially. I am not referring to that at all but rather starting a dribble once a dribble has ended. One might think they are or at least should be the same however the case book clearly distinguishes the two.

Yes and then the gurus complain about users not reading/finding it themselves. Sigh. Check 4.15.1 Sit C and 4.15.5 Sit C. They involve dribbles without the ball touching the floor. Hard to believe that throwing the ball against an official is considered a dribble.

If the initial dribble is started on the release, how is a subsequent (illegal) dribble not also started on the release?

Again, we may choose to wait for what happens next to make a call (or not), but that doesn't change the fact that the dribble actually began on the release.

Not A Guru, But Still, No Complaints From Me ...
 

The Holy Grail ...
 

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.E...=0&w=409&h=179

(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 would still wait to be sure that this isn't a legal "bounce" pass, so a second touch would seal the deal for me, but by the book, the second touch isn't necessary.

Nice job Camron Rust. Way to stick to your guns. Nice debate. I learned something. Thanks for your persistence and your patience.

Play A: A1 ends his dribble, intentionally throws the ball in the air, runs several feet, and catches the ball that hasn't touched the floor.

Ruling: Violation for illegal (double) dribble.

Probably what he means is throwing the ball off the opponent's backboard or an official. Of course, the rules book states that both of those are treated the same as contacting the floor, so he is just being picky.

I've been striving to make the more important point that the ball must bounce before a moving player may touch it again because it isn't a legal dribble if it doesn't. (Note for someone being picky and not understanding the general premise of this thread: A stationary player may toss the ball into the air and catch it because the rules state that doesn't count as a dribble.)

100% correct.
We had this discussion on this forum about seven years ago. Camron and I were on the same side then too. The casebook has a play stating that it is a violation when the player releases the ball. That is the start of a dribble.
I'm shocked that Billy does not recall that long thread.

Conclusion ???
 

I definitely recall the thread. I don't recall a consensus, or conclusion, based on language from 4.15.1 SITUATION C.

Now, where are my keys?

Floor ...
 

Touched Twice Before Touches Floor ...
 

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.

ART. 2 During a dribble the ball may be batted into the air provided it is
permitted to strike the floor before the ball is touched again with the hand(s).

Trust But Verify ...
 

I know that both of these statements are 100% true, but I can't find a citation for either.

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?

In don't remember failing Basketball Rules 100. Let me check my transcript. I may have to go to summer school. Yikes.

Additional Casebook Play ...
 

Is it 4.15.1 SITUATION C, or is there an additional casebook play? Another casebook play would be swell, said the Beaver to Wally.

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.

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


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

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.

Then ended element is there to distinguish that the next act is a new dribble. The second dribble need never end for it to be a violation, it only needs to be started.

You'd be wrong. I've called it and I'll call it again. If it leaves the hand looking like the million dribbles I've seen before it, it is a dribble. If it leaves the hand looking like the million passes I've seen before it, it is a pass.

Then you are not following case citations. You are going only by, and quite strictly, the rule book.

That's just it, these plays are not ones you have seen millions of times, which is why you would not call anything until it was touched again.

You have not seen players throw the ball off the backboard to themselves millions of times. You have not seen a shooter, about to be blocked, drop the ball, millions of times. We have been talking about extremely rare cases.

I can see it now, shooter in the air, about to be blocked, simply lets go of the ball, and TWEET, immediately, before the ball is even close to the floor, you call a violation. I'd love to hear that conversation with the coach as well as see the entire crowd's amazement as to what happened.

Or, player after dribbling to a stop 20 feet from the backboard, clearly throws the ball to himself off the backboard, and you blow your whistle on release, signaling a violation before the ball even hits the backboard. Would love to see that too. Yikes!

Yes, I do recall that thread as well. Boring.


Respectfully, all that knowledge and experience CR and you only go by one set of rules... your own. That is perfectly acceptable however, I will continue to follow the rule and case books, as well as the released interpretations/POEs/comments/etc. Again ,with respect, I simply cannot respond to you any longer.

Citations ...
 

Questions, And More Questions ...
 

4.44.3 SITUATION D: A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: ...a traveling violation in ... since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal. (9-4)

Wait? I thought that you could only travel (one rare exception and this is not it) when holding the ball? And there's that pesky ball touching the floor play that keeps rearing its ugly head.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.v...=0&w=242&h=177

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change direction to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.



No mention of another touch needed in order to have a violation.

You might want to rethink that....

There you go. The new dribble and violation occurred when the ball was pushed to the floor.

You may not like it and may not want to admit it but it really is NFHS the rule (not my rule)....and supported by the case play JAR cited above.


The thing you're missing about the case plays you're looking at is they're not defining what is a violation. They're giving play examples, which may include more activity than is relevant, and giving a ruling. That doesn't mean all of the activity listed has to occur to be a violation.

Yes, this one.

I already mentioned in this thread that the NFHS altered the ruling on this play from illegal dribble to traveling about 10 years ago. It should not have done that because now the violation in the ruling no longer meets the actual rules, but Mary Struckhoff never cared about the actual rules!

A moot point as other cases, such as 4.15.4 Sit C, specifically mention another touch for the violation to occur.

It also does not mention that it would be an illegal dribble violation. In fact, it uses the words palmed/carried and that is exactly what CR/you/me and every other ref in the world would call on this play. We would blow our whistle and use the palming mechanic. No one would use the illegal dribble mechanic.

The violation is the same. The palming mechanic is simply a communication to help describe the play. It was actually removed from the books years ago and then put back again.

Theoretically Speaking ...
 

4.15.1 SITUATION C is an excellent citation stating that the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble.

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 literally contains the words, "starts a dribble, not "dribble", but "starts a dribble", nothing more, no ball hitting the floor, no additional touch, etc.

The rule itself is poorly worded. The casebook play is as clear as a bell.

However, practically speaking, in a real game, I would have a patient whistle to be sure that this doesn't subsequently turn into a bounce pass to a teammate, or a steal by the opponents.

4.15.4 SITUATION A is a pretty good citation stating that the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble.

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change direction to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.

It states, "attempt to continue the dribble", not "continues the dribble". I not a big fan of "pushed the ball to the floor" at the end of the casebook play, some may quibble about whether, or not, pushing the ball to the floor really means that the ball actually hits the floor.

Theoretically speaking, on a written test, the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least until somebody changes my mind, which may be in a few minutes the way that this thread is going.

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.

A carry/palm IS either an illegal dribble or a travel depending on the specifics. For long time, the call was just that. They only added the carry signal for clarity in communication. It wasn't a rule change.

Not A Travel ...
 

So I was right, it's not a travel. right?

Stupid caseplay. Stupid NFHS.

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..."

Palming (Carrying) Is Just A Signal ...
 

Palming (carrying) is not an actual violation, it is just a signal. Sometimes the actual violation is a travel. Sometimes the actual violation is an illegal dribble.

Here's the only mention of palming (carrying) in the rulebook, it's the only mention anywhere in the rule (not casebook) language.

4-15-4-B: The dribble ends when: The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.

Palming (carrying) is not found anywhere in Rule 9 Violations. It's not a actual violation, it's just a signal.

Palming, or carrying, is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles an illegal second (double) time.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.I...=0&w=132&h=131

While almost all officials use the palming (carrying) signal for such a play, it wouldn't be incorrect for an official to use the travel signal for a situation where the violation was an actual travel, or for an official to use the illegal dribble signal for an actual illegal dribble. I've observed many officials use these options. It would be incorrect for an official to use the travel signal for such a play that was actually an illegal dribble, or for an official to use an illegal dribble signal for a play that was actually a travel.

Stupid NFHS ...
 

Got any additional historical information? Timeline? Why removed (probably because it's not an actual violation)? Why, once removed, put back (officials revolt)?

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.o...=0&w=206&h=174

It Was A Dark And Stormy Night ...
 

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.

Yes, it is strange that palming is in the Violations section of the rule book but not in any written area. Contrastingly, some violations (ball through net from below) are in the written area but not in the Violations section.

Now that is plot thickening.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.


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...

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.

The Oddest Signal ...
 

I just realized that my statement, "Palming, or carrying, is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles an illegal second (double) time", is incorrect.

By rule language, palming can be a legal method of legally ending a dribble, i.e., no violation.

My statement accurately reflects the use of the signal, palming leading to an illegal (double) dribble, or a travel.

Palming may be the oddest signal on the NFHS signal chart.