Questions? - Page 7

ChuckElias · #91 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 06:46am

Quote:

Originally posted by mick
if you have a comic book, look at page page 49.
They show, in the right hand picture, a player (three times) in motion.
1. dribbling the sideline
2. stepping on the mine and not touching the ball

3. again, dribbling on the court, but away from the sideline.

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

Thanks, mick. I got the picture. And now, I can at least see how you could interpret it the way you do. And now, I also agree completely with you. The third picture is uncessary; I mean, unnecessary.

Bob and Tony seem to have the same interp that I do. I can live with that.

mick · #92 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 08:29am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by edred
1. A1 Dribbling along side line, ball is not in hand, steps on line, does not touch ball again, a2 picks up ball, did a1 cause a violation.

I have offered mechanically similar scenarios, definitions of ball location, dribble, player location, ... a picture.
I offer consistency of ruling.

What do I get? ...The recitation of merely a poorly written note to a written rule which requires additional exceptions in order to tie the rules together, ... and "Just cuz".
"Just Cuz" and "Just is' are baseball rules.

I await the retouch.
And don't call me Shirley.

mick

mick · #93 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 08:40am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

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

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

Thanks, mick. I got the picture. And now, I can at least see how you could interpret it the way you do. And now, I also agree completely with you. The third picture is uncessary; I mean, unnecessary.

Bob and Tony seem to have the same interp that I do. I can live with that.

[pick one or more]
It was dark and I couldn't see my fingers.
--or--
I can't spell good.
--or--
The letters were uncessary.
--or--
Just cuz.

mick

bob jenkins · #94 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 09:02am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Play: Dribbler A1 steps on the OOB line, but doesn't retouch the ball. Despite Coach B's howls, Mick lets play continue and explains A1 wasn't a dribbler unless he retouched the ball.

Late in the game, A leads by 1 with time running out. B1 obtains legal guarding position on dribbler A1. A1 runs into B1, B1 is knocked to the floor and the ball bounces away without being retouched by A1. Mick blows his whistle just as the horn sounds.

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 A1 travels just before he charges into B1, are you going to call the travel or the charge?

ChuckElias · #95 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 09:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins
If A1 travels just before he charges into B1, are you going to call the travel or the charge?

Is A1's hand in contact with the ball at the time of the charge?

Camron Rust · #96 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 01:52pm

In that funny book triad, the third pane is just giving a play example. It is not saying the retouch is required to have a violation.

Bob's example regarding a PC foul and a dribbler hits the nail right on the head. The PC foul, like the OOB violation, doesn't depend on what happens next. The player is a dribbler or is not a dribblre. The player is in or they are out. If they are a dribbler and step OOB, it is a violation that instant.

If the player steps out before contact (as was suggested in a related case), I'm certainly calling OOB and ignoring the subsequent train wreck.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 19th, 2003 at 12:54 PM]

ChuckElias · #97 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 02:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust
The player is a dribbler (FED rules) or is not a dribblre. (FIBA rules)

mick · #98 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 02:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Bob's example regarding a PC foul and a dribbler hits the nail right on the head. The PC foul, like the OOB violation, doesn't depend on what happens next. The player is a dribbler or is not a dribblre. The player is in or they are out. If they are a dribbler and step OOB, it is a violation that instant.

...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. " ...except for that funny little Note.

mick

Hawks Coach · #99 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 19, 2003, 06:02pm

I was a month early on this one - and at least two pages shy on my intellectual responses estimate. But the nail was struck fairly close to center of the head.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10367

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I love this one!
Always stirs up a bit of a debate. But I agree, you have an interrupted dribble, therefore no violation. I am just waiting for the what ifs to begin on this thread, then 5 pages of intellectual discussion