Dribble ...

[BillyMac]

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.

[BillyMac]

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?

[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. 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.

[Camron Rust]

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. 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).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 ... the fact that it was a dribble the moment it left the hand.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

A1 (ended dribble) throwing the ball way from himself. No ref is calling anything until A1 touches the ball again.

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).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 dribble violation because the ball must be released before the pivot foot is lifted to start a dribble.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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).

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball must contact the floor to be a legal dribble. If it doesn't, then it is an illegal dribble.

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?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Now go look up the old "air-dribble" which the NFHS banned decades ago.

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

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

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

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

".. illegal dribble violation because the ball must be released before the pivot foot is lifted to start a dribble.

Isn't that traveling and not an illegal dribble?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

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

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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball must contact the floor to be a legal dribble.

Technically, not true.