rule question

[bucky]

Case: The ball rolls near A1. A1 begins pushing the ball, with one hand, along the floor all over the court and finally picks the ball up. A1 then begins dribbling. Ruling? Does it matter if the ball was pushed with two hands?

Case: A1 is dribbling ball and then picks up his dribble. A1 then places the ball on the floor and ceases to have contact with the ball. A1 then picks up the ball. Ruling?

Case: A1 is dribbling ball and then picks up his dribble. A1 then places the ball on the floor and ceases to have contact with the ball. A1 then pushes the ball along the floor for 10 feet and then A2 picks the ball up. Ruling?

Case: A1 is dribbling ball and then picks up his dribble. A1 then places the ball on the floor and ceases to have contact with the ball. A1 then pushes the ball along the floor for 10 feet. A1 picks up the ball. Ruling?

[BillyMac]

I had something similar happen to me in a Catholic middle school game fifteen years ago (remember it like it was yesterday). "Ball handler" was batting the ball around on the floor (I can't remember if it was after his dribble had ended) and seemed to gain an advantage in a crowd of opponents, so I sounded my whistle and ruled a travel (or maybe an illegal dribble).

I discussed this with my partner after the game and she convinced me that I was incorrect in my ruling (should have been no call). I spent a long time in the rulebook and casebook (and may have brought it to the Forum) and decided that she was correct, there was no violation.

If you can fumble the ball around trying to catch pass and move several feet without a violation, why can't one do the same with a ball on the floor?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If you can fumble the ball around trying to catch pass and move several feet without a violation, why can't one do the same with a ball on the floor?

I reckon you can if it is indeed a fumble, but one can easily push the ball along the floor in a controlled fashion. At least in these cases, the action mentioned was meant to be a controlled manner of pushing the ball.

Seems like a no call however, theoretically, one could easily gain an advantage by such actions.

[Nevadaref]

Player control is defined as holding or dribbling the ball.
This action is neither of those. Therefore, we do not have a player in control of the ball. This player may bat the ball along the floor as much as desired. It is up to an opponent to come put a stop to it.

All this constitutes is a player batting a loose ball.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Player control is defined as holding or dribbling the ball.
This action is neither of those. Therefore, we do not have a player in control of the ball. This player may bat the ball along the floor as much as desired. It is up to an opponent to come put a stop to it.

All this constitutes is a player batting a loose ball.

Not quite. I would not use the word "batting" but rather pushing. Indeed, it may not fit the definition of player control via holding/dribbling, however the player is indeed completely in control of the ball. Perhaps we are not envisioning the same action but the way I meant to describe it, the player is controlling the ball by pushing it along the floor. Now, this is certainly nothing that any of use will experience. If it were to happen, obviously the defense would immediately put a stop to it. Also, by pushing the ball along the floor and guiding it directly, this is not a loose ball as far as application, maybe by definition, but not actual action. The player is controlling the ball.

I am anxious to try it the next time I play some pick-up ball. The debate/argument that ensues will surely be great entertainment.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bucky

Not quite. I would not use the word "batting" but rather pushing. Indeed, it may not fit the definition of player control via holding/dribbling, however the player is indeed completely in control of the ball. Perhaps we are not envisioning the same action but the way I meant to describe it, the player is controlling the ball by pushing it along the floor. Now, this is certainly nothing that any of use will experience. If it were to happen, obviously the defense would immediately put a stop to it. Also, by pushing the ball along the floor and guiding it directly, this is not a loose ball as far as application, maybe by definition, but not actual action. The player is controlling the ball.

I am anxious to try it the next time I play some pick-up ball. The debate/argument that ensues will surely be great entertainment.

Your definition of player control is not the rules book definition. That is why you are having difficulty with what the call should be.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Ball handler" was batting the ball around on the floor (I can't remember if it was after his dribble had ended) and seemed to gain an advantage in a crowd of opponents, so I sounded my whistle and ruled a travel (or maybe an illegal dribble). I discussed this with my partner after the game and she convinced me that I was incorrect in my ruling (should have been no call). I spent a long time in the rulebook and casebook (and may have brought it to the Forum) and decided that she was correct, there was no violation.

Originally Posted by bucky

... one can easily push the ball along the floor in a controlled fashion. At least in these cases, the action mentioned was meant to be a controlled manner of pushing the ball.

In my situation (above) there were definitely pushes in a deliberate, controlled manner, and it definitely was an advantage for the ball "handler", as he deliberately put his opponents at a definite disadvantage by pushing the ball away from his defenders.

But with all that, the correct call is still a no call.

In this situation, the ball "handler" is not holding the ball. In this situation, by rule, the ball "handler" is not dribbling the ball. By rule, not a travel. By rule, not an illegal dribble. By rule, nothing illegal.

The coaches and fans can complain until the cows come home (I work a lot of games in rural areas, with John Deere tractors in the school parking lots), the correct call is a no call and play on.

Confucius says, "If it's not illegal, it's legal".

[RefsNCoaches]

I've got nothing here....albeit it's really odd and probably going to get some questions from the defensive team coach and their all-knowing fans

While yes, it is "controlled" by the "ball handler" as a deliberate action...I can't say it's an illegal dribble (he hasn't dribbled) ..and we haven't established a pivot foot to meet the requirements for a travel violation...

[Raymond]

I can think of one realistic version of this scenario:

A1 chases down an interrupted dribble with the ball now rolling slowly on the floor. Right before B1 gets to the ball, A1 bats it to cause it to roll away from B1, then bats it again to cause it to roll away from B2, then A1 chases the ball down and picks it up.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I can one realistic version of this scenario:

A1 chases down an interrupted dribble with the ball now rolling slowly on the floor. Right before B1 gets to the ball, A1 bats it to cause it to roll away from B1, then bats it again to cause it to roll away from B2, then A1 chases the ball down and picks it up.

Somewhere in the rule book there's a statement to the effect of "it is not a dribble when a player bats the ball away from other players."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

A1 chases down an interrupted dribble with the ball now rolling slowly on the floor. Right before B1 gets to the ball, A1 bats it to cause it to roll away from B1, then bats it again to cause it to roll away from B2, then A1 chases the ball down and picks it up.

A very realistic situation.

Advantage to one team. Disadvantage to the other.

Nothing illegal here (as long as A1 doesn't start a new dribble).

If it's not illegal, it's legal

Play on.

[rbruno]

If he batted the ball with a closed fist it is a punch and is illegal. I think as described it was with an open hand so even though the whole place will go bonkers i think we have nothing. These are the tougher calls to make. Like when the dribbler looses control and taps forward a bit and the whole gym is yelling "travel". We have to learn to not make that call. Officials that do either don't know the rules or don't care because if you do make the travel call everyone is happy.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my situation (above) there were definitely pushes in a deliberate, controlled manner, and it definitely was an advantage for the ball "handler", as he deliberately put his opponents at a definite disadvantage by pushing the ball away from his defenders.

But with all that, the correct call is still a no call.

In this situation, the ball "handler" is not holding the ball. In this situation, by rule, the ball "handler" is not dribbling the ball. By rule, not a travel. By rule, not an illegal dribble. By rule, nothing illegal.

The coaches and fans can complain until the cows come home (I work a lot of games in rural areas, with John Deere tractors in the school parking lots), the correct call is a no call and play on.

Confucius says, "If it's not illegal, it's legal".

A1 dribbles and then holds the ball, establishing his right foot as the pivot foot. A1 then places the ball on the floor with his right hand never losing contact with the ball. A1 then pushes the ball in a controlled fashion, along the floor for ten feet, taking several full steps, and then picks up the ball. This would be legal based on this thread and everyone's opinion about the rules. This would also be a case whereby a pivot foot could be moved from one spot on the floor to another and there is no traveling violation.

Now, once A1 picks up the ball, could A1 pivot on his left foot? Ruling?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

A1 dribbles and then holds the ball, establishing his right foot as the pivot foot. A1 then places the ball on the floor with his right hand never losing contact with the ball. A1 then pushes the ball in a controlled fashion, along the floor for ten feet, taking several full steps, and then picks up the ball. This would be legal based on this thread and everyone's opinion about the rules. This would also be a case whereby a pivot foot could be moved from one spot on the floor to another and there is no traveling violation.

Of course he can, he not holding the ball. He can move his pivot feet all over the court as long as he's not holding the ball.

Originally Posted by bucky

Now, once A1 picks up the ball, could A1 pivot on his left foot? Ruling?

Good question. We all know that a player can always legally pick up a fumble, but what can he do once he picks up the ball? In bucky's example we know that he can't start a new dribble. But can he pivot? There are situations (jump stops) where neither foot can be a pivot foot, but I don't believe that this example is a jump stop, so I would guess that he probably could pivot.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bucky

A1 dribbles and then holds the ball, establishing his right foot as the pivot foot. A1 then places the ball on the floor with his right hand never losing contact with the ball. A1 then pushes the ball in a controlled fashion, along the floor

for ten feet, taking several full steps, and then picks up the ball. This would be legal based on this thread and everyone's opinion about the rules. This would also be a case whereby a pivot foot could be moved from one spot on the floor to another and there is no traveling violation. Now, once A1 picks up the ball, could A1 pivot on his left foot? Ruling?

Legal. A1 is permitted to touch the ball to the floor if he is holding the ball.

Illegal. A1 is no longer holding the ball. He has released (pushed) the ball to the floor a second time and is the first to touch it. Violation. The rest is irrelevant IMO.