Bob,
...Wondered where you were.

Mick responds .... ?

"Well, coach, the foul killed the ball as it does in all instances of called fouls, but stepping on a line without the ball is always okay. " ;)

mick

If A1 steps on the OOB line just before he charges into B1,but he's not touching the ball when he stepped on the line or when the contact occurs, are you gonna just call an immediate OOB violation on A1, Bob, and ignore the charge as being incidental contact during a dead ball?

Not me, I'm calling a PC foul.

If you're not going to call him OOB b/c of the fact that he's not touching the ball, why would you call a PC foul? He's not touching the ball when the contact occurs, he's not dribbling, right? So this is a common foul. Blech.

If you're not going to call him OOB b/c of the fact that he's not touching the ball, why would you call a PC foul? He's not touching the ball when the contact occurs, he's not dribbling, right? So this is a common foul. Blech. [/B][/QUOTE]When does the dribbler in this case lose player control of the ball, by rule? When the contact occurs- that's when!! That's why it's a PC foul, and not a common foul. That's the exact same reasoning as saying that the violation occurs immediately when the ball is re-touched after the dribbler comes back in-bounds.

Now go back to the question. Are YOU gonna call an immediate violation in that case,and ignore the subsequent train wreck?

Btw....Blech? Blech? That's embarrassing. I'll e-mail you a few that you can try instead of "blech". Don't let the kids see 'em though.

So if the kids can't see 'em, what's Chuck supposed to do with 'em?

In a word, yes.

No you're not. You're too good.

On my understanding, and nobody here has convinced me that I'm wrong, when the dribbler steps on the line (even without touching the ball at the time), it's the same as if he'd dribbled the ball on the line. He is OOB and the ball is dead. I'm not going to wait to see if there's a crash, or if he "retouches" the ball. Because the ball is already dead. So if he steps on the line and then we have a crash, I have the ball OOB to the defense and I judge whether the crash was intentional or flagrant.

So in all honesty, I would without hesitation call the OOB violation and ignore the crash. I am NOT playing devil's advocate, as I sometimes do.

As I said, this is obviously a potato/potahto issue. But I honestly can't see how you can interpret it the way you do.

Well, if we keep this going a few more pages, NFHS may deem it necessary to add some more words to the poorly written thing.

Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion. <LI> 1. dribbling the sideline<LI>2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball<LI>3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

I'll scan it to you.
mick

Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion. <LI> 1. dribbling the sideline<LI>2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball<LI>3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

[/B][/QUOTE]Mick,quit using logic. You'll end up taking all of the fun oughta this thread! :D

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: Originally posted by mick Chuck, if you have a comic book, look at page page 49. They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion. <LI> 1. dribbling the sideline<LI>2. stepping on the <font color = red>mine</font> and not touching the ball<LI>3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline. Using your suggested interpretation, no retouch required, the third picture would be uncessary.

Mick,quit using logic. You'll end up taking all of the fun oughta this thread! :D [/QUOTE]


Oooh! Stepping on a mine? I think that happened on this subject.
Where did edred go? He started it. :)

mick, did you read the information under the illustration?

"A player who is dribbling (player control) and steps out of bounds during the dribble, even though he/she is not touching the ball at the time, has violated."

You call the violation when the player steps OOB, not when he touches the ball again. Look at the picture onn the left.

If you don't believe me or Chuck, surely you believe Bob Jenkins.

You know what? The more I wrestle with this question, the more I think that it (like a lot of other test questions) is
really a non-issue. If a dribbler is in a normal posture dribbling the ball and steps on a line, the whistle will go off quick enough that he will not have time to put up his hands and make a show of not dribbling again. The official in this case probably will not actually know (or need to know) whether the dribbler touched the ball and the line at the same time or not. If the dribbler loses his footing, even slightly, and touches the line, even though the ball may be close at hand, I think we have an interrupted dribble. In this case, not only would touching the line not be a violation, the dribbler would be allowed to step back in bounds and resume his dribble. I would have to see the play, ("Ball games are not played on paper, they are played inside television sets." Kenny Mayne) but I think I have been converted.

JAR, of course that is the way that you're gonna call it in the real world. Always a violation for being OOB unless something different occurs with it, such as an interrupted dribble happening at exactly the same time(in the official's opinion). When they put in the "interruped dribble" language, the main criteria to judge whether it occurred or not was "whether the dribbler could immediately continue his dribble." If they couldn't, in the official's opinion, you had an interrupted dribble.

The language in the book on this particular play is murky, though.

Around here, we thrive on murky language! Our goal is to make Chuck's head explode! :D

PS- Don't get me wrong though. Mick's claims are certainly logical and defensible under the murky language,imo.